Are some Christians "really" humanists? (Jesus, ritual, morals)

[MatCauthorn]

It seems to me that a lot of Christians (and probably members of other theistic religions too, but I am most familiar with Christianity on this point) take the approach to the Bible that they believe the parts that make sense to them and reject the parts which don't. And I don't mean to split hairs and bring up the idea of wearing blended fabrics and such - I'm talking about bigger ideas.

Many people, for example, do not agree with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, for any number of reasons - their best friend is homosexual, or they feel the belief is outdated, or they believe homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore the individual cannot choose his/her sexual preference, etc. These people are using human reason to determine what they think God's view on a particular issue would be. Isn't that a lot like what humanists do when they apply reason to human experience to determine what they feel to be moral/ethical? So, should the people who do this be considered humanists on that issue?

To take it one step further -- is it such a big leap to go from determining one's morality by applying reason to human experience in one area and instead doing so in all areas? If reason is a sufficient measure for questions about one moral situation, why not just apply reason to every moral situation?

-- Mat

[Druidus]

It seems that way to me as well, but I really don't think that fundies are better. I think I speak for all of us when I say that.

I don't think they should be considered Humanists, either. That would insult both Humanists and Christians.

[michel]

Originally Posted by MatCauthorn

It seems to me that a lot of Christians (and probably members of other theistic religions too, but I am most familiar with Christianity on this point) take the approach to the Bible that they believe the parts that make sense to them and reject the parts which don't. And I don't mean to split hairs and bring up the idea of wearing blended fabrics and such - I'm talking about bigger ideas.

Many people, for example, do not agree with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, for any number of reasons - their best friend is homosexual, or they feel the belief is outdated, or they believe homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore the individual cannot choose his/her sexual preference, etc. These people are using human reason to determine what they think God's view on a particular issue would be. Isn't that a lot like what humanists do when they apply reason to human experience to determine what they feel to be moral/ethical? So, should the people who do this be considered humanists on that issue?

To take it one step further -- is it such a big leap to go from determining one's morality by applying reason to human experience in one area and instead doing so in all areas? If reason is a sufficient measure for questions about one moral situation, why not just apply reason to every moral situation?

-- Mat

You have a point; a good one I think. But I cannot see how it can be applied, in practice. The only trouble is that , if you carry on with that idea, you are merely going to increase the number of 'labels' - and I, personally think that there are too many.

This argument of yours goes too far in saying that ......." If reason is a sufficient measure for questions about one moral situation, why not just apply reason to every moral situation?"......, because, unfortunately not every case is exactly the same, and I therefore don't believe that one morality must be applied to every single event that occurs under the umbrella of similar events.

[Saw11_2000]

There can be Christian Humanists, I believe they have their own religion now. Usually just being "humanist" implies secularity. And, Christians usually tend to disagree with other humanist ideas and such.

[MatCauthorn]

Originally Posted by michel

This argument of yours goes too far in saying that ......." If reason is a sufficient measure for questions about one moral situation, why not just apply reason to every moral situation?"......, because, unfortunately not every case is exactly the same, and I therefore don't believe that one morality must be applied to every single event that occurs under the umbrella of similar events.

I intended to ask, "if one can use reason to determine what is moral in situation X, wouldn't it be appropriate to use reason to determine what is moral in situation Y?" I ask this because Christian morality is supposed to be based on the Bible (or whatever portion of the Bible a particular sect believes), and yet even within the sections which they believe, people often single out certain beliefs and say, "that doesn't make sense," or "I don't believe that," "or I don't think that's what God would say is true." So I am wondering why it is okay to use reason to determine whether one part of the moral code of the Bible is true and not to use it to determine if any of the moral code of the Bible is true.

Maybe that's what you meant, though... I'm not quite clear what part you're taking issue with.

-- Mat

[des]

I think that I am bringing up (resurrecting? :-)) a long dead thread, but I do have some thoughts on it, anyway. I belong to a very liberal mainline church (UCC), which among other things ordains gays.

The trouble with basing your morality on the Bible, imo, is that the Bible has a lot of immoral things in it. For instance, the little episode of Abraham about to sacrifice his child (oops, you don't need to do that, I was just joking-- wasn't said like that); slavery is ok (just be nice to your slaves), genocide is ok (if it is for the cause of the Isrealites-- take Joshua who killed children, old people, women and animals).

So I think a lot of progressives read the Bible more metaphorically. The thing is that I don't think that the Bible is really an ethical guide of any kind (it would be nice if people did as Jesus suggests, love thy neighbor as thy self), this would be great stuff. Too bad, I don't see a whole bunch of people doing this. I think your morals are based basically on some innate
responses to others. Why is the Golden rule basically the same across many many cultures? I think that's why. I might have just contradicted myself, because the Golden rule is in Jesus' teachings (but it is also in Confusis, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc.) But there's a lot of other stuff to sort out. I suppose if you took the Sermon on the Mount, you'd have a great moral guide, and it says nothing on homosexuality, etc.

Of course, I am not sure just how Christian I am at this point. But I think you could ask a dozen people in my church how they feel about Biblical morality and you might get similar answers. Many of them, would strongly assert they are Christians. The thing is there has gotten to be a single answer on what Christianity is supposed to be. And I bet you could name it.
That wasn't the case a hundred years after Jesus lived btw. So that's worth considering.

Some of the values of a humanist society are most strongly moral and ethical. I wonder if Christianity has taken from them in certain respects in the road to modernity. Things like appreciation of diversity, etc. (Progressive Christians might put a different spin on it-- God created diversity.)

I'm not sure if that answers the question or confuses it, but I thought it was interesting. And a lot of what I am thinking about right now.


--des

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by MatCauthorn

These people are using human reason to determine what they think God's view on a particular issue would be. Isn't that a lot like what humanists do when they apply reason to human experience to determine what they feel to be moral/ethical? So, should the people who do this be considered humanists on that issue?

I'm thinking that humanism isn't the issue.

When one chooses for oneself what one believes, that isn't "determining what God thinks," that is only determining what they think. This would be the type of Christian who doesn't assume that they can determine what God thinks apart from what is written.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by MatCauthorn

It seems to me that a lot of Christians (and probably members of other theistic religions too, but I am most familiar with Christianity on this point) take the approach to the Bible that they believe the parts that make sense to them and reject the parts which don't. And I don't mean to split hairs and bring up the idea of wearing blended fabrics and such - I'm talking about bigger ideas.

Many people, for example, do not agree with the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality, for any number of reasons - their best friend is homosexual, or they feel the belief is outdated, or they believe homosexuality is genetically determined and therefore the individual cannot choose his/her sexual preference, etc. These people are using human reason to determine what they think God's view on a particular issue would be. Isn't that a lot like what humanists do when they apply reason to human experience to determine what they feel to be moral/ethical? So, should the people who do this be considered humanists on that issue?

To take it one step further -- is it such a big leap to go from determining one's morality by applying reason to human experience in one area and instead doing so in all areas? If reason is a sufficient measure for questions about one moral situation, why not just apply reason to every moral situation?

-- Mat

Hi Mat,
The questions you ask open up a very serious line of inquiry, and ultimately point to whether or not the old adage of "The head knows when to make rule, the heart, when to break them" Many wonderful people have a need to use an outer dogma in their spiritual walk, and I do not use that term in a pejorative sense. Being an old Twelve stepper, I have seen many arguments over those in recovery over what a certain passage in the text means. Even there in NA or AA you have the conservatives, liberals, legalists, and mystics.
What I have found over the years is that when you choose one thing over another something important may be excluded.
Those persons who sincerely seek the truth, who have experienced the "Dark Night" have seen why one item in the Bible is used and another discarded. Praying in ernest over each decision, over each perception is an important part of our path because Jesus encourages us to "...let us reason together" and so it becomes us as adults who choose to put away childish things to know when to use one method and when not to. When to go into our closet and pray over a thing like what homosexuality means and what it is for you is critical to understanding how the old levitican law needs to be seen.
From one perspective that I can see (my sight is limited being human) there is no way a literal interpretation can be done of anything, in fact the term "literal Interpretation" may well be an oxymoron. Why? because of our method of seeing and knowing. The mere fact of perception chooses this and not that, and the more black and white our thinking the more we lose touch with that which is.

Peace
Mark

[des]

Originally Posted by Willamena

I'm thinking that humanism isn't the issue.

When one chooses for oneself what one believes, that isn't "determining what God thinks," that is only determining what they think. This would be the type of Christian who doesn't assume that they can determine what God thinks apart from what is written.

I think you are on to something here. I think that some Christians feel that
God is basically sort of, and I hope not to offend anybody, but kind of a micromanager, who sees all and knows all in human affairs, including (and I have heard this) praying for parking spaces. There are those who believe God intervenes on human behalf.

I think others don't believe as much in intercessory powers, and definitely don't believe that God has made your mind up for you. BUT the question does remain, where do you get your moral compass from? I don't personally think it comes from God in a direct way anyway.

But say you believe as many liberal/progressive Christians do in social justice. You wouldn't think, to my knowledge, that you get it directly from God in a very linear way, but that it is God from whom you are created and who endows you with your sense of justice. It might not be in a very straight line way (for instance most liberal/prog. Christians believe in evolution). But ultimately somewhere back there you got that from a connection with God. And God is why you have this connection with others
ultimately.

A humanist would probably not attribute this to God in any way, they'd say it was a sense of interconnectedness with others as we are all human. But I actually don't think that the basic drive is all that different, least in comparison with liberal Christians. I think it would be very different with Biblical oriented Christians who would have to tie it to some statement in the Hebrew prophets or Jesus. A liberal Christian would say, this is ALSO what Jesus preached. But I'm not altogether sure which came first.

Gee, I'm not sure if that's what the above poster was suggesting. Oh well.
:-)

I'm also not sure if this confuses or explains. Oh well. :-)


--des

[Charlotte,NC Humanist]

Matt Cauthorn:
Re. your statement ," These people are using human reason to determine what they think God's view on a particular issue would be."

IMO, "these people" are using INTERPRETATION to determine what they feel their "gods" view is, not reason. Unfortunately, Interpretation is influenced by BIAS which can interfere with the use of reason to explore a topic.

The Bias may well prevent a complete exploration of a topic, ie. all sides and not just a narrow biased approach.

The Interpretation made may well be arrived at through a process of thought dissociation
where by the rational thinking processes used by the individual in every day life are simply
suspended when a bias toward religious thinking has a strong emotional ,not rational, effect on their thinking.