I'm a practising Anglican Christian...

[SteveH]

...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.)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

...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 !

[Robbie]

(Btw - I am at the time of posting somewhat less than sober.)

Would never have guessed  . 
Btw your avatar is politically incorrect but fanny with it. Sorry meant funny.

Be as liberal as you like SteveH!

[SteveH]

Would never have guessed  . 
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.

[torridon]

...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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ad_orientem]

..but it's amusing in an adolescent sort of way.

Ain't nothing wrong with that.

[jeremyp]

...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.

[Roses]

I am an agnostic, but I am quite prepared to state that among all the claptrap in the Bible there is some good advice.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Roses]

   




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.

[Enki]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Shaker]

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.

[Roses]

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'?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?