Is it important to know what is really real?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Spiritman

Humanism as a moral philosophy that recreates itself continually.

Please cite an example

It is a good philosophy to justify deviant behavior because it adopts pseudo premises of behavior to justify actions that otherwise might be condemned by moral codes that are based on premises that do not change.

Incorrect.

For example, it is self evident to most Christians that marriage is intended by God to be between a man and a woman. With these two verses, the scriptures support and confirm this position.

Gen:2:24-25:Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

1) If it were self-evident, you wouldn't need to turn to the Bible for support
2) The Bible proves you wrong. It used to be "self-evident" that marriage was between one man and as many women as he could support, but that changed.

The two men choose their own moral code to justify their marriage: that is how humanism works. It justifies behavior by changing the premises of what a marriage is whereas under the Christian code of ethics marriage between two men is a sin, under humanism such a marriage is acceptable.

No, that's not how humanism works. Humanism supports gay marriage on the unchanging premise of equal treatment under the law.

There are not major differences between humanism and Christian ethics until humanism departs from normal behavior of society such as a person adopting a homosexual life style or kills a million people in Cambodia. To us it has always appeared that humanism raises its evil head when men depart on a path to fulfill the lust and pride of life in search of power and rejection of normal society.

Please stop repeating the lie that humanim somehow justifies atrocties like Cambodia.

We have honestly looked to find something good to say about humanism but have yet been able to find anything good about it. The reason is that the rules and premises of correct living in humanism keep changing. Instead of challenging our criticism about humanism and attacking us personally, we would appreciate your efforts to point out advantages of humanism and why such a philosophy should be accepted by normal society.

Where have I attacked you personally? Trying to get you to see that you are factually incorrect is not a personal attack.

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Storm

Please cite an example

Incorrect.

1) If it were self-evident, you wouldn't need to turn to the Bible for support
2) The Bible proves you wrong. It used to be "self-evident" that marriage was between one man and as many women as he could support, but that changed.

No, that's not how humanism works. Humanism supports gay marriage on the unchanging premise of equal treatment under the law.
Please stop repeating the lie that humanim somehow justifies atrocties like Cambodia.

Where have I attacked you personally? Trying to get you to see that you are factually incorrect is not a personal attack.

You have failed to defend your humanistic position against our criticisms by not citing one favorable tenant of humanism. You claim to be knowledgeable in this matter which should make you capable of citing many favorable aspects of humanism. We say Humanism is a moral philosophy that recreates itself continually and you say "Please cite an example." From your vast knowledge of humanism you should know that the proponents of humanism consider the ability to recreate and renew moral codes of humanism as an advantage and strong feature of humanism. True humanist scholars do not take offense when it is pointed out that they are the author of moral relativity. Humanist are proud to be moral relativist. This gives your previous statement about us opening our mouth and removing all doubt that we were a fool new meaning, doesn't it?

We say,"It is a good philosophy to justify deviant behavior. . ." and you say, "Incorrect." Again we must point out to you that the proponents of humanism view the ability to justify deviant behavior as a favorable tenant of humanism. Tell us now, are these your previous words?

You have no idea what humanism is. "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt."
Do some research.

How do they taste?

Speaking of marriage of one man and one woman you say:

1) If it were self-evident, you wouldn't need to turn to the Bible for support
2) The Bible proves you wrong. It used to be "self-evident" that marriage was between one man and as many women as he could support, but that changed.

You ask us for an example, this was it. Yet you thought we were turning to the Bible for support. Your second statement is also fallacious as marriage in the Bible was first between one man and one woman and later in the Bible it changed as our example proves. Perhaps you should research the Bible facts a little better before you chide others for opening their mouths and removing all doubt.

We say: "The two men choose their own moral code to justify their marriage: that is how humanism works." and you reply is: "No, that's not how humanism works. Humanism supports gay marriage on the unchanging premise of equal treatment under the law." Knowing full well that unchanging premises is a tenant of God based ethics, why would you compromise your beliefs on humanism? Humanist do not support laws that do not change and you should know this with all your vast knowledge of humanism.

Again you say: "Please stop repeating the lie that humanism somehow justifies atrocties like Cambodia." And I reply, "NO"!

You ask: "Where have I attacked you personally? Trying to get you to see that you are factually incorrect is not a personal attack". Showing us is not a personal attack but calling us a fool is. We now see clearly who is factually incorrect and who has brought this discussion to an unacceptable level whether we use God based ethics or humanistic ethics. Please do not respond to any of our threads if you can not do so in a respectful manner. God bless you and we forgive you.
Spiritman

[Storm]

1) You have failed to support your arguments.

2) I never claimed to have "vast knowledge" of humanism. My knowledge of humanism is, in fact, extremely basic. Unfortunately for you, that's enough to know you're full of s***.

3) I did not call you a fool, I quoted a homily about the foolishness of speaking from ignornce.

4) Again, who is "we"?

[Charity]

I returned to make another post, but maybe not...

[Spiritman]

Originally Posted by Charity

I returned to make another post, but maybe not...

Charity, you may agree with me that it is important to know what is really real. I know that God is really real as I have a personal relationship with God, one that I do not doubt. Like most Americans, including those of history, the majority of Americans have been guided by a strong faith in God. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and I guess that every President this nation has had prayed to God for guidance along with the majority of Americans these great men served. The most popular Presidents like JFK and Ronald Regan depended on God as they act on personal courage.

Instead of discussion and debate, it seems to me that some people on this forum are more interested in putting a stop to any belief in God and resort to personal attacks as a means to discourage conversation. I hope that is not the reason that you decided not to post on this thread but your witness is valuable and you do such a good job of stating you beliefs without attracting the animosity of others. Although I know that people who believe in God is a great majority in this country, I sometimes am made to feel that I am in the minority. Don't be discouraged by the loud voice of the minority on any forum that seem to want to control, as thought police do, the free exercise of your faith.

[Ogre]

Originally Posted by Storm

1) You have failed to support your arguments.

2) I never claimed to have "vast knowledge" of humanism. My knowledge of humanism is, in fact, extremely basic. Unfortunately for you, that's enough to know you're full of s***.

3) I did not call you a fool, I quoted a homily about the foolishness of speaking from ignornce.

4) Again, who is "we"?

If this were a debate, Spiritman wins.

[Charity]

Spiritman, thank you for your kind words in a previous post. I believe myself to be a fundamentalist and I have stated this in many posts. Maybe you could classify me as a liberal "fundy". I believe the Bible is inspired of God, with certain errors over time, because of different translations, but still giving us the basic premise for morals and Godly love. I believe that everyone has the right to live their life according to their own convictions. This goes for Atheist, homosexuals or any religion that doesn't believe the same as myself. I can do nothing to change how people believe, so I will not argue that point with them or try to convert anyone, I can only speak what I feel in my heart to be true.

Is it important to know what is really real? I feel that I know what is real by my belief in God. I know that it is really real by my personal experience which I know was God sent........All I know is if God no longer existed for me, my world would forever change. All the peace, joy, love and all my faith would be void. Truth as I know it now would no longer exist and without something or a promise to hold on to I would only feel like an empty shell....Just Nothingness.

I'm sure that if the world would go on that most people would in all probability live their normal daily lives, going on as usual.....Maybe they wouldn't even notice the change. With love for everyone and respect to all, I render my own personal belief as a testimony to my faith.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Trying to catch up a bit in this thread...

Originally Posted by Sunstone

What's the difference between something being real and something being really real?

A rendundant adverb?

Originally Posted by Spiritman

To believe in something without a premise seems to be a greater stretch than believing in facts of reality because of an ultimate premise such as God.
Spiritman

How is God a premise?

Originally Posted by Spiritman

You have failed to defend your humanistic position against our criticisms by not citing one favorable tenant of humanism.

No... she did in post 37:

Originally Posted by Storm

Here, I'll get you started. From the great Wiki:

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality.[1][2]

As implied by the article Storm quoted, some of the tenets of humanism are:
- all people have dignity and worth
- right and wrong can be determined through universal human qualities, particularly rationality.

I personally consider both of these to be quite favourable. Don't you?

Originally Posted by Spiritman

We say Humanism is a moral philosophy that recreates itself continually and you say "Please cite an example." From your vast knowledge of humanism you should know that the proponents of humanism consider the ability to recreate and renew moral codes of humanism as an advantage and strong feature of humanism.

If that's the case, then shouldn't be easy for you to cite a single example that supports your claim?

Originally Posted by Spiritman

True humanist scholars do not take offense when it is pointed out that they are the author of moral relativity. Humanist are proud to be moral relativist.

There are absolute moral principles in humanism, for example there is the principle of the dignity and worth of all people (as was already pointed out to you). I'm not sure how you can equate humanism with moral relativism. I do acknowledge that inherent in most forms of humanism is the idea that people should not be restrained from doing as they please so long as their actions don't harm others, but this comes out of the absolute moral principle that all people should be respected. Also, it doesn't imply that all actions are good, right or beneficial, only that the proper judge of these things is the person themselves.