Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Steve H on December 01, 2018, 11:05:40 PM
-
...but I read 'New Humanist' magazine every quarter, and have just taken out a subscription to it. Am I terminally confused, or is it possible to be a liberal Christian and a humanist at the same time? (Btw - I am at the time of posting somewhat less than sober.)
-
...but I read 'New Humanist' magazine every quarter, and have just taken out a subscription to it. Am I terminally confused, or is it possible to be a liberal Christian and a humanist at the same time? (Btw - I am at the time of posting somewhat less than sober.)
Then you are an anglican liberal christian with humanist leanings. Rejoice !
-
(Btw - I am at the time of posting somewhat less than sober.)
Would never have guessed :D.
Btw your avatar is politically incorrect but fanny with it. Sorry meant funny.
Be as liberal as you like SteveH!
-
Would never have guessed :D.
Btw your avatar is politically incorrect but fanny with it. Sorry meant funny.
Be as liberal as you like SteveH!
Thanks. I suspect that my avatar, which I pinched from the book of faces, is a photoshop job - it is probably really 'Ming Palace', as in the chinese dynasty - but it's amusing in an adolescent sort of way.
-
...but I read 'New Humanist' magazine every quarter, and have just taken out a subscription to it. Am I terminally confused, or is it possible to be a liberal Christian and a humanist at the same time? (Btw - I am at the time of posting somewhat less than sober.)
Not much difference is there ? A humanist is basically a christian with supernatural beliefs removed. I think there are many such, Richard Holloway springs to mind.
-
Not much difference is there ? A humanist is basically a christian with supernatural beliefs removed. I think there are many such, Richard Holloway springs to mind.
How can you be christian if your beliefs can dispense with Christ altogether when you reduce them down.
I wonder then how you are defining Christian here.
It strikes me that Steve takes his faith quite seriously since its restoration through liberal christianity seemed very important to him.
-
How can you be christian if your beliefs can dispense with Christ altogether when you reduce them down.
I wonder then how you are defining Christian here.
It strikes me that Steve takes his faith quite seriously since its restoration through liberal christianity seemed very important to him.
There are many flavours of christian, just as there are flavours of Islam, and for some, it is the moral teachings teachings of Jesus that are the important thing and not so much the Jewish mythological backstory. Not an expert on humanism, but i would have thought that humanism could be described broadly as deriving from christian moral values but with anything supernatural subtracted.
-
Not much difference is there ? A humanist is basically a christian with supernatural beliefs removed. I think there are many such, Richard Holloway springs to mind.
By definition, aChristian is someone who accepts Christ - "The anointed One'....If on accepts He was 'anointed;, then who anointed Him? "Christ' is not asurname'; it is simply a job description...the Greek equivalent of 'Messiah'.
If one accepts Christ, one accpts who He is...thus agnosticism...and 'Hollowayism' don't count.
-
There are many flavours of christian, just as there are flavours of Islam, and for some, it is the moral teachings teachings of Jesus that are the important thing and not so much the Jewish mythological backstory. Not an expert on humanism, but i would have thought that humanism derives from christian moral values but with anything supernatural subtracted.
Interesting since secular humanists would argue that even Christ is unnecessary for morals. In that event I cannot see how they could be or would even want to be classed as christian.
-
..but it's amusing in an adolescent sort of way.
Ain't nothing wrong with that.
-
...but I read 'New Humanist' magazine every quarter, and have just taken out a subscription to it. Am I terminally confused, or is it possible to be a liberal Christian and a humanist at the same time? (Btw - I am at the time of posting somewhat less than sober.)
You do not have to agree with everything in a magazine in order to subscribe to it.
-
I am an agnostic, but I am quite prepared to state that among all the claptrap in the Bible there is some good advice.
-
I am an agnostic, but I am quite prepared to state that among all the claptrap in the Bible there is some good advice.
Not the "Jesus was a great teacher" stuff...
Because Idon't know many grat teachers claiming divine authority.
-
Not the "Jesus was a great teacher" stuff...
Because Idon't know many grat teachers claiming divine authority.
That guy was a mere human with a grandiose opinion of himself. There is no evidence that he resurrected.
-
In response to the opening post:
We have at least two people who are members of our humanist group who are Christian. One is a Unitarian and the other is a retired Anglican vicar. Both seem extremely pleasant and level headed people who obviously find some of the ideas in humanism to their liking. None of us have any problem with this at all. They are valued members of our group.
-
That guy was a mere human with a grandiose opinion of himself. There is no evidence that he resurrected.
[/quote
At least we can both agree on dismissing the "Jesus was a great teacher" guff.
-
That guy was a mere human with a grandiose opinion of himself. There is no evidence that he resurrected.
There is evidence, albeit non-conclusive, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your world-view. For one thing, he was said to have appeared to approximately 200 people on one occasion, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote about it - the point being "if you don't believe me, go and ask them!". There is also the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their belief - they'd hardly have been willing if they knew it to be false.
-
Steve H,
There is evidence, albeit non-conclusive, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your world-view. For one thing, he was said to have appeared to approximately 200 people on one occasion, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote about it - the point being "if you don't believe me, go and ask them!". There is also the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their belief - they'd hardly have been willing if they knew it to be false.
First, people don't "ignore it because it doesn't fit in with a world view". They ignore it because it's hopelessly inadequate for evidential purposes. That would have been more accurately expressed as, "some people take it seriously because it fits in with their world view".
Second, there's lots of anecdotal "evidence" (that non-one thought important enough to write down at the time) for lots of things. If you want to set the evidence bar that low you have no choice but to accept all the other anecdote-based claims too.
Third, there's no requirement that the followers did have to know it to be false.The Jim Jones and the David Koresh episodes tell you that.
-
Steve H,
First, people don't "ignore it because it doesn't fit in with a world view". They ignore it because it's hopelessly inadequate for evidential purposes. That would have been more accurately expressed as, "some people take it seriously because it fits in with their world view".
Second, there's lots of anecdotal "evidence" (that non-one thought important enough to write down at the time) for lots of things. If you want to set the evidence bar that low you have no choice but to accept all the other anecdote-based claims too.
Third, there's no requirement that the followers did have to know it to be false.The Jim Jones and the David Koresh episodes tell you that.
David Koresh?
Fred Phelps can't be far behind.
-
he was said to have
So no evidence, then.
There is also the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their belief - they'd hardly have been willing if they knew it to be false.
I have nothing left to lose, so fuck it, let's go for the full Godwin.
Millions of people died in their fervent belief of National Socialist ideals.
Were they right to do so?
The point I'm trying to express is that belief isn't reality. What you believe to be the case isn't necessarily actually the case.
-
There is evidence, albeit non-conclusive, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your world-view. For one thing, he was said to have appeared to approximately 200 people on one occasion, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote about it - the point being "if you don't believe me, go and ask them!". There is also the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their belief - they'd hardly have been willing if they knew it to be false.
People see what they want to see. What about all those people who claimed to have seen the fictional, 'Angel of Mons'?
-
Steve H,
First, people don't "ignore it because it doesn't fit in with a world view". They ignore it because it's hopelessly inadequate for evidential purposes.
Yes its a shame that"people" didnt do that at the Brexit referendum.
-
There is evidence, albeit non-conclusive, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your world-view. For one thing, he was said to have appeared to approximately 200 people on one occasion, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote about it
You sell yourself short. It was actually 500. It doesn’t matter though because it is just a made up number.
Anyway, 600 people people saw me scale the Eiffel Tower on the outside yesterday, also the Thirteen, Rocky and Jim the brother of Bod.
You must believe me since I’ve got more witnesses than you have for the resurrection of Christ.
- the point being "if you don't believe me, go and ask them!".
How? Paul doesn’t tell us who any of them are.
There is also the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their belief - they'd hardly have been willing if they knew it to be false.
But they die for their beliefs in the same stories that Jesus is resurrected.
A lot of people sacrificed their lives to stop Voldemort. They’d hardly have done that if he was fictional.
-
You sell yourself short. It was actually 500. It doesn’t matter though because it is just a made up number.
Anyway, 600 people people saw me scale the Eiffel Tower on the outside yesterday, also the Thirteen, Rocky and Jim the brother of Bod.
You must believe me since I’ve got more witnesses than you have for the resurrection of Christ.
How? Paul doesn’t tell us who any of them are.
But they die for their beliefs in the same stories that Jesus is resurrected.
A lot of people sacrificed their lives to stop Voldemort. They’d hardly have done that if he was fictional.
That the 500 were made is a positive assertion and infers an actual event of someone making it up.
Therefore I suppose you have evidence of that happening.
-
A lot of people sacrificed their lives to stop Voldemort. They’d hardly have done that if he was fictional.
Shite analogy
Christian martyrdom is historically documented
JK Rowling is paid millions for having made up Voldemort
What then was the history of the making up?
-
Anyway, 600 people people saw me scale the Eiffel Tower on the outside yesterday, also the Thirteen, Rocky and Jim the brother of Bod.
That is truly an act of sacrifice for ones beliefs.....banging out antitheist posts for religionethics while hanging off the side of the Eiffel Tower.
-
There is evidence, albeit non-conclusive, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your world-view. For one thing, he was said to have appeared to approximately 200 people on one occasion, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote about it - the point being "if you don't believe me, go and ask them!". There is also the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their belief - they'd hardly have been willing if they knew it to be false.
That rather smacks of 'the Bible must be true because the Bible says so'. Whatever happened to 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' ? There is no independent verification of the Resurrection from the historical record at all.
-
That the 500 were made is a positive assertion and infers an actual event of someone making it up.
Therefore I suppose you have evidence of that happening.
It's there in the Bible. It wouldn't be if somebody hadn't made it up.
-
Shite analogy
Clearly it's a good analogy because, having no counter argument, you just resort to insulting it.
Christian martyrdom is historically documented
but not the martyrdom of the Apostles specifically, unless you are counting the Biblical texts but it's the Biblical texts that we are arguing about.
JK Rowling is paid millions for having made up Voldemort
You're missing the point. It was claimed that the Apostles being martyred was evidence that Jesus was resurrected. I brought up the example to refute the logic of that argument. I do not have to prove that the stories are fiction only that somebody else's (Steve H's) assumption that they are fact is faulty.
-
That is truly an act of sacrifice for ones beliefs.....banging out antitheist posts for religionethics while hanging off the side of the Eiffel Tower.
I took my iPad with me.
-
I took my iPad with me.
That is just stretching credibility too far.
-
That is just stretching credibility too far.
So, in your opinion, me taking an iPad with me whilst scaling the Eiffel Tower is less credible than a dead person coming back to life.
Have you got any idea how stupid you sound to anybody who hasn’t drunk the Christian Koolade?
-
So, in your opinion, me taking an iPad with me whilst scaling the Eiffel Tower is less credible than a dead person coming back to life.
Have you got any idea how stupid you sound to anybody who hasn’t drunk the Christian Koolade?
Sorry Jeremy Im working out which is the most iconic image you hanging off the side the eiffel tower or King Kong off the Empire state building.
With regard the resurrection perhaps you should be concentrating on how you stand with God.
Am I worried that I sound stupid to New atheists....what do you think?
-
Am I worried that I sound stupid to New atheists....what do you think?
https://media.giphy.com/media/QkuLPrw0zK7ja/200.gif
-
There is evidence, albeit non-conclusive, but you ignore it because it doesn't fit your world-view. For one thing, he was said to have appeared to approximately 200 people on one occasion, most of whom were still alive when Paul wrote about it - the point being "if you don't believe me, go and ask them!". There is also the fact that the apostles were willing to die for their belief - they'd hardly have been willing if they knew it to be false.
Blimey! Are you now saying you're prepared to believe in a 'literal' resurrection? How the hell does that square with the 'non-realist' god approach? I suppose that 'process theology' might just be able to accommodate such ideas, but more in the sense that 'spirit' or 'life-force' survives death (it seems to me that there's not much difference between process theology and Bergson's ideas of Creative Evolution)
-
How can you be christian if your beliefs can dispense with Christ altogether when you reduce them down.
I wonder then how you are defining Christian here.
It strikes me that Steve takes his faith quite seriously since its restoration through liberal christianity seemed very important to him.
It strikes me that Steve is struggling to rescue something of value in the Christian tradition, in the hope that (particularly) the Anglican Church may be able to accommodate all the views of the Critical Period, and particularly the later speculations of Paul Tillich, Bonhoeffer and even more non-traditionalist thinkers such as Don Cupitt, Jack Spong and indeed, Richard Holloway.
When he finally does decide to come down on one side of the fence or the other, I suspect it will not be too close to your own cherished 'ground of belief' (to misquote Tillich).
-
With regard the resurrection perhaps you should be concentrating on how you stand with God.
Why? I might as well worry about how I stand with Albus Dumbledore.
Am I worried that I sound stupid to New atheists....what do you think?
It depends on how much you want to recruit new blood into your religion.
-
Blimey! Are you now saying you're prepared to believe in a 'literal' resurrection? How the hell does that square with the 'non-realist' god approach? I suppose that 'process theology' might just be able to accommodate such ideas, but more in the sense that 'spirit' or 'life-force' survives death (it seems to me that there's not much difference between process theology and Bergson's ideas of Creative Evolution)
I did say "non-conclusive". To be honest, I was just pissed off with yet another airy, argument-free statement from that woman.
-
I did say "non-conclusive". To be honest, I was just pissed off with yet another airy, argument-free statement from that woman.
But her statement was right to a first approximation.
Such evidence as exists only shows that some Christians at the end of the first century believed Jesus resurrected, not that he actually did.
-
That rather smacks of 'the Bible must be true because the Bible says so'. Whatever happened to 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' ? There is no independent verification of the Resurrection from the historical record at all.
Interesting point since many atheists Ive spoken to say witnessing a resurrection would clinch the existence of God for them.
So Torridon.......what would someone who was "independent" make of a resurrection?
-
Why? I might as well worry about how I stand with Albus Dumbledore.It depends on how much you want to recruit new blood into your religion.
More shocking ignorance from a New Atheist.