Back when your grandparents were kids people used to do something called, “thinking”.
You would make a comment like:
“A cigarette affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
Your grandparents would “think about” that and reply:
“Baloney.”
Thinking was useful for keeping civilization from being ruined by stupidity.
Believe it or not, thinking used to occur in church!
There’s an ancient, seldom referenced religious book (called ‘The Bible’) that actually says:
” As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead. “
Acts 17:2
Paul was a ‘religious guy’ who thought about Christianity a lot.
Religion doesn’t require thought anymore.
We’re a brain-dead society that accepts any fancy platitude as religious wisdom.
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
You’re nodding your head.
Your grandparents would have a different response.
You can go through religious propaganda and replace ‘humanism’ with popular products without affecting the usefulness of the statement.
You doubt?
“Pepsi —guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. “
“Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in Carvinal Cruises.”
“Taco Bell customers are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.”
Your grandparents didn’t believe everything they heard.
At least occasionally, they would think about stuff.
You should do that too.
So you don’t waste your life believing baloney:
“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change.”
Humanist Baloney – That’s not even good for making a sandwich.
17 Responses
Ed B. I think your comments are only tangential to the topic John presented here. There are hours and hours (if not years) of debates and discussions you can watch on YouTube over the distinctions between Calvinism and Arminianism. It’s unlikely you’ll settle a 475 year old debate on an internet message board. Might I suggest, however, Jerry Walls book, “Does God Love Everyone?” I feel like it’s a pretty balanced analysis of the 2 perspectives. Based on your original comment about Arminianism, I’d say you’ve not studied it thoroughly. I don’t consider my self in either camp, because I don’t like “-isms” that are based on the philosophical framework of a single man, rather than look at the full corpus of scripture.
Here’s a more appropriate slogan…
“Humanism is a myopic and incoherent philosophy for people who wish to remain in total denial (or ignorance) of the reason for their own continuing existence, while trying to derive purpose from their meaningless nihilism.”
It’s also called whistling in the dark. Ah…ah…ah…ah!
https://youtu.be/YyhGtKAkNTo
That same humanism has crept into our theology. It’s called Arminianism.
Explain.
Isn’t it true that Arminianism teaches that salvation is a 50/50 deal between us and God with the ultimate decision being in our hands?
I’ve never heard anyone explain salvation as a 50/50 deal between us and God. Humanism says there is no God. I don’t see how Arminianism and Humanism are compatible.
I’ve always heard Arminians say salvation is MY or OUR choice.
I disagree. Atheism says there is no God. Humanism says humans are #1. The universe exists for our purpose alone.
Thus, one can have a humanistic anthropology as opposed to a Biblical anthropology.
I’ve always heard Arminians say salvation was achieved by Jesus sacrifice on the the cross as payment for the sin of mankind.
Did mankind choose to sin?
That’s what they say, at first. And it sounds right at first, until one starts asking follow up questions and digging deeper. Then you find out it’s internally inconsistent because of it’s anthropocentric soteriology.
Yes, one man chose to sin, therefore all of mankind chooses to sin.
But can man choose to not sin the same way he chooses to sin?
Feel free to start digging and expose my anthropocentric soteriology.
Yes. If man can choose to sin, it follows that he must be able to choose not to sin.
Have you discovered anything internally inconsistent yet?
man can choose not to sin? In and of himself?
That’s the inconsistent part. One’s own salvation is up to one’s choice, ultimately. Theology, meet humanism.
Calvinism is theological determinism. It is every bit as hopeless and nihilistic as Atheism.
Your theology turns Jesus sacrifice on the cross into a cosmic display of schizophrenia. God sacrifices himself to himself in order to forgive sins that He forced us to commit.
The inconsistency is yours.
In John 6, Jesus says the opposite of Arminianism.
No. He does not.
Why are you hell bent on making God into a psychopath?
“No one CAN come to me unless the Father draws him. And I WILL raise him up on the last day.” Right. My mistake. I forgot to read it while thinking man trumps God.
I assume you know what a straw man and a Red Herring argument is. Which is why I’m confused that you used both by your massive leap, putting words into my mouth and distracting from the core point I was trying to make.
I wasn’t talking about God, I was talking about the human condition before God.
Long and the short of it is this. Man made a choice. Man screwed up. Man disobeyed God in the garden. Thus, man died. Since then, man is completely unable to get himself back in right standing with God. God must do the work of salvation Himself. I fail to see how this makes God a psychopath.
You are conflating individuals with the whole of humanity.
Mankind cannot go back in time and prevent Adam and Eve from choosing to sin.
Individuals can choose whether or not they sin in the moment.
The Father is drawing every individual to Jesus. Individuals choose how they respond to God’s drawing them.
Determinists take John 6 out of context to prove no one has a choice but then ignore Jesus saying later in the same gospel that He would draw ALL people to Himself…
” And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.” This He said, signifying by what death He would die.” (John 12:32-33)
Not to mention, Jesus died for everyone in the whole world (1 John 2:2), and God wants ALL to come to repentance and believe (2 Pet.3:9). God provides the grace but it definitely is a choice.
When we take John 6 out of context, we certainly do make God a psychopath, a respecter of persons. But regardless of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, you’re right, John. Humanism is a different issue.