When we talk about “Euthanasia”, we have to make one thing perfectly clear.

It’s very simple. “Euthanasia” is a Euphemism, defined as “The act or an example of substituting a mild, indirect, or vague term for one considered harsh, blunt, or offensive.”

What is offensive about Euthanasia? It is the act of murder, ostensibly conducted either at a person’s request, or for “their own good”.

That is what is offensive about Euthanasia. Permit me to be Southern Baptist for a moment, and let you know what I’d call it: “A stench in the nostrils of God.”

My thesis? Euthanasia has no Biblical basis, nor does it even remotely fit God’s will, in any way, shape, or form.

Get the picture? Good. We’ll move on.

Read the rest of this entry

I’m going to steal shamelessly from the name of the late 80’s “missile defense program”, in my initial offering of an idea.

Now that we’re moderately organized, apologists – we need to start targeting, and spreading out to practice apologetics.

I have a couple theories on how to do so.

1. We need to start “teaming up”.

2. We need to start identifying the people we plan on reaching out to.

3. We need to start identifying the people we need to defend the Gospel from, and to.

So, there’s a few ideas, thrown into the wind. Now, let’s flesh them out.

Teaming up:

I’d like to mention a verse I made in an earlier post: “And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three {strands} is not quickly torn apart.” (Ecclesiastes 4:12)

This concept is especially important to those of us who actively defend the faith – sometimes in hostile settings. I can point to a host of times, in my own experience, where just one single, solitary friendly word worked worlds of encouragement. Even more welcome is a brother or sister, who can stand back to back with you, and assist you – and you him/her. It is invaluable, when debating, defending, or explaining the Word – and even more so in a hostile setting – which is where those of us who are active, offensively (in a tactical sense) minded apologists are likely to be.

I encourage you to find someone, or someones, of a like mind, and a like spirit, to “team up” with, when you do “on the spot” apologetics. On a forum I often debate on, I created a group called “Shade Tree Apologists”, in order to assist the Christians who debate on this forum. It’s proven unbelievably encouraging and effective – because, like that strand of three cords, it is not easily broken. It allows you to have backup, to have a slightly different perspective, an encourager, and a comradeship.

Don’t forget the great bit of wisdom above.

Identifying:

I have a challenge for you. Find at least 3 “secular”, 3 agnostic, or 3 atheistic journals/blogs this week. Pick whichever suits your style of apologetics. Now, start commenting. Get to know them. Interact – make their day. Preferably, find a low traffic blog (especially you higher-ranked bloggers), and make their day even further by giving them a nod in your sidebar.

Several “encouragement” opportunities, and a way to “let your light shine before all men”. See how that works. I’m going to try an experiment, to see how the idea of “salting the blogosphere” works, in practice. Who’s with me? I’ll round up your results in my “Daily Cut” posts, as you do so. That’s the other reason I wanted the aggregator…

Targeting:

Also, I encourage you to find at least one blog with a worldview antithetical to the Christian worldview. Disagree, trackback, and dialogue. At least one “defense” per week should be our goal, in my humble opinion. Don’t you think? Now, not all of us are _active_ apologists. If your gifts correspond to this type of thing – go for it. If they _DO NOT_, ignore this. My opinion, at least. Another option: disagree, trackback, and continue the dialogue blog to blog, instead of in their comments section. I dunno. See what works. It’s an experiment 😀

So… who wants to try this?

The first question: What does “being salt” mean?

Well, I wrote a bit on this some time ago, in a post entitled “On Salt” – so I’ll plagiarize myself first, and go from there.

Salt is many things, but let’s look at a few things that salt has always been, historically, and in the Bible.

Read the rest of this entry

Go here, read what they have to say, and please – help them out.

The resources they offer are INESTIMABLE to apologists, and to the online Christian community.

(HT: Bene Diction

This entry is for the first “Vox Apologia,” a weekly showcase for apologists, and the defense of the Christian faith.

I believe I’ll examine what apologetics is to many churches, and to society – and a bit about where the “common” conceptions are wrong.

The Culture
The common conception, from the “culture’s” view can be summed up as follows:

I’m sorry. Allow me to enter an objection to the term ‘apologist’ as being more pre-judicial than probative. In short, the implications of the term ‘apologist’ implies in common wording that I am allowing for an ‘apology’ for something. Since I have no desire to provide an apology, be it in justification sense or otherwise.

In short. Anybody who asks for my justification that there _is_ a god, and that the Christian types are on the right track in that particular quest, must first provide his own justification or ‘apology’ otherwise.

Until the moment when an ‘Atheist Philosopher’ becomes an ‘Atheist Apologist’ I shall maintain this view. The term is unfairly prejudicial.

Which is a good point. Sort of. It “apologizes” way too much to “common usage”, and not enough to “classical scholarship”, though.

But, even more telling… I read this in a forum signature the other day.

What, is something so bad about Christianity, that you have to apologize for it?

Popular culture really doesn’t know what apologetics is. They don’t know, because they rarely see it. They have bought into the lie that Christianity is something “private”, and that they shouldn’t be “forced” (as if anyone can be “forced to listen to anything…) to hear what someone has to say about it. So, anyone who tells them what Christianity is, that doesn’t match up with the preconceptions they’ve been given, is either intrigued, or appalled by “insensitivity”.

It’s an interesting dilemma. However, that’s not the subject. Forgive me for digressing.
Read the rest of this entry

Well, I suppose now is as good a time as any to pitch some ideas.

Idea #1: “Apologetics Aggregator”
I recently started an aggregator catered specifically towards blogs centering on Apologetics. Mine is the only one currently listed – but please – if you feel like this is something you’re interested in, or something you concentrate on – shoot me an email – rk AT razorskiss DOT net (spam separated). Please list your blog’s title, and it’s RSS url. If you have category-level RSS feeds- please only give me the RSS for the category in which you discuss apologetics. I hope to see you soon.

Idea #2: “Apologetics Symphony”
There is a Best of Me symphony, a “Carnival of the Vanities”, and a “Christian Carnival”. However, I’d like something that could be used as a catalyst to encourage more apologetics-centered work in the blogosphere. I’ve also been talking with Pastor Phil Steiger, of Every Thought Captive, about some collaboration… and other things 😀 What do you think?

Idea #3: “Shade Tree Apologists”
I started a informal group, not too long ago, to counter a tendency I was seeing, on an online gaming forum I debate on, relatively often. The tendency was the same one that we see in our mainstream culture:
1. To marginalize Christianity, or to attempt to debase it.
2. To use out of context Scripture references to somehow “debunk” scriptural arguments used against social and moral issues.
3. To completely misunderstand both the goal, and the motive behind any sort of apologetic defense of Scriptural mandates.

So, out of the members on that forum, and a blogging friend of mine, from my old blogging community, I began a rough, informal “alliance”, which I called the “Shade Tree Apologists.” (You can look at what I’ve done thus far in the preceding link – or, by going to the main page of my site, and scrolling down just a bit on the left. You can find archives of my prior debates, reference tools and sites, and various articles.) In essence, it’s an “alliance”, a reference library, and a way to “encourage one another”, as we are called to do. I’d like to invite anyone, after prayerful consideration to help me build on it, and expand it into the blogosphere.

I’ve been inspired to do the above, to a considerable extent, by Joe Carter, and his Evangelical Outpost, as well as Adrian Warnock, and his work over at his blog.

That’s pretty much it. I’ve felt a strong burden for this for quite some time, and this is the chief reason I built this blog. So, comments, advice, and assistance would be greatly appreciated!

Phil from Every Thought Captive is back, with Part #2: The Turn to Community.

In navigating the transition between a Modern culture influenced by the Enlightenment and the Postmodern culture influenced by a deconstruction of the Enlightenment, the topic of Christian apologetics has come up in some circles as something which is up for grabs. It should not be too hard to find an Emergent or pomo writer who asks whether apologetics are still necessary, and more often than not the answer is that apologetics, as they are traditionally understood, are dead and outdated.

Excellent, excellent series. I suggest you go read it.

Every Thought Captive has an interesting topic – and, it seems to be right up my alley.

My basic thesis is that the first reason is an important cultural observation which should help us understand what kind of role apologetics will play in our world today, but that the second reason is, well, basically hogwash. In a short series of posts I want to argue that apologetics are still necessary, and will always be a necessary part of the life of the Christian disciple but that the cultural observation made above will guide us in our understanding about what is important about apologetics today. In short, apologetics are still a necessary and important part of the Church, but it may take on a slightly different face that it has in the past century.

Head on over, and take a look.

Part I – Relative.
———————————————-
Pro:
“Art, like morality, consists in drawing a line somewhere.” – G.K. Chesterton

Con:

“What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike.” – Alfred Whitehead

———————————————–

Objective:
———————————————–
In C.S. Lewis’ book, Mere Christianity, he explores the logical thought processes used to establish the foundation for Christianity, and provides several analogies which are useful to explain the principles on which the Biblical concepts of morality are based. I’d like to quote a short excerpt.

 Quote:

Every one has heard people quarreling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very mportant from listening to the kinds of things they say. They say things like this: “How’d you like it if anyone did the same to you?”–“That’s my seat, I was there first”–“Leave him alone, he isn’t doing you any harm”–“Why should you shove in first?”–“Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine”–“Come on, you promised.” People say things like that every day, educated people, as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.

Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which he expects[ the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: “To hell with your standard.” Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have.

Now, what we have just seen, is an analogy. It is not a statement of absolute proof, which demolishes all arguments to the contrary. However, it points out something which, if you claim to be a thinking, reasoning being, you may have thought about, or need to think about.

If you say something is “wrong” – why do you say that? If you say something is “wrong” – where did you just get that standard? Some in the atheist camp – namely, Michael Martin – believe that it is possible to be an atheist, and an objective moralist. More power to them. I wonder, though – what standards, precisely, do they set as the
object? We’re getting ahead of ourselves, though.
—————————————
Pro:

“Morality is always the product of terror; its chains and strait-waistcoats are fashioned by those who dare not trust others, because they dare not trust themselves, to walk in liberty.” – Aldous Huxley

Con:
“There is only one morality, as there is only one geometry.” – Voltaire
—————————————
Subjective:
—————————————
Perhaps the most famous proponent of subjective morality was Pythagoras, who said “Humans are the measure of all things.”

(For the record, the terms “subjective”, and “relative”, for the purposes of this short essay, will be considered interchangeable.)

Subjective morality was defined quite succinctly by B.W. Van Norden in a recent paper of his. So, I’m going to quote it for you.

 Quote:

Speaking at the most general level, relativism is the doctrine that a claim is true or false only in relation to some particular viewpoint or perspective. Specific kinds of relativism may be distinguished according to (1) which kinds of claims the doctrine of relativism applies to, and (2) which viewpoint or perspective these claims are relative to.

Relativism applied to ethical claims is called, sensibly enough, “ethical relativism. Ethical relativism is the doctrine that all ethical claims are true or false only in relation to some particular viewpoint or perspective.

Source.

There is also cultural subjectivism, but that’s another issue.

Basically, the crux of the argument converges at one point: That there is no absolute standard for right and wrong: Except that there is no absolute standard for right and wrong.

Now, if you’re a quick study, you’ll immediately see the paradox implicit in that statement.

Now, we’ll look, a bit, at the problematical aspects of this philosophical worldview.

1. If there is no standard, how do we presume to create, enforce, or quantify law?

2. If standards differ with each individual, who are we to say anything when someone commits an act contrary to our standards?

3. If standards are relative to each other, on what scale, or measure, do we say that they are relative to each other?

—————————————–
Pro:
“Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, & not the {to kalon}, truth, &c. as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree.” – Thomas Jefferson

Con:
“Morals are an acquirement – like music, like a foreign language, like piety, poker, paralysis – no man is born with them.” – Mark Twain

—————————————–
Objective:
—————————————–

C.S. Lewis goes on to speak about the foundation of moral law, and the principles inherent in moral law.

 Quote:

There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual–when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea . . . if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions.

“But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to. . . . And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.

“Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the thing inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for? What course the whole fleet ought to be on? . . .

So, if we have established that Christian morality is concerned with these three things, what is the logical conclusion?

1. Right and wrong is determined on an objective basis. There is an outside determination of such principles, apart from subjective experience. Atheists claim that this trait “evolved”. Christians claim that this trait is called “conscience”, and is an inborn, spiritual part of every human being, which reveals the existence of absolute morality in creation. (Romans 2:14-17)

2. Morality is implicit in human consciousness. Everyone knows, in themselves, the basis of right and wrong. Those who know what is right, and don’t do it – are wrong. (James 1:17)

3. There is also a true and legitimate, objective basis for absolute truth: God, who gave it to us, and will hold us to account for our adherence to His standard.

Such a standard necessarily transcends the world of description. It presupposes that God exists and has spoken, or revealed such standards. The true absolute contends that the Creator of man AND nature has given such values that are commensurate with the way He made us and appropriate to people’s problems and aspirations.

Thus, in painfully short form, we have the Christian foundation for objective truth.
——————————————-

Now, we arrive at the heart of the problem.

When we look at today’s society, and we think; “What are the issues Evangelicals care about?”

This subject will come to mind. Not immediately, and maybe not even until a thorough discussion of the issues reveal it. However, this core issue is at the heart of much of the debate raging around the country.

Evangelicals, I find it safe to say, believe that there is one, over-arching, absolute Truth. With a capital T. The only Truth is that which comes from God. When we apply that to morality, we have an absolute statement to make. That statement reads as follows, in my own words:

—————————-
While we do not deny that there are elements of truth in most religions, we must, and we shall, reject any self-styled “truth” which contradicts the moral law, and the moral standards set forth in Scripture, which we believe to be the literal, inspired Word of God. To do anything other is a dangerous ignorance at best, and outright rebellion, at worst. While the world may be deceived by claims to truth, we must not, and cannot, cease to proclaim, and to advance, the Truth set forth in Scripture. To cease to so is spiritual, societal, and moral suicide.

We recognize that certain religions all have a kernel of truth, somewhere in their practices, and doctrines – otherwise, no one would ascribe to them. Men recognize truth, as it is in their nature to do so. However, the lies which are most convincing, are those which contain an element of truth, yet are deceitful, at their core. To sacrifice our devotion to the Truth, and to the Author of Truth, at the altar of “tolerance” is neither beneficial, nor sane. While we can respect that the proponent of a certain viewpoint holds that viewpoint, intellectual honesty, as well as spiritual honesty, demands that we challenge that viewpoint. Reserving our right to challenge the factual, doctrinal, philosophical, spiritual, and moral tenets of faiths we consider to be erroneous is not only crucial – it is the basic foundation for our beliefs. Wherever any faith, creed, or belief diverges from Christianity, it is wrong. Christianity is no more tolerant of untruth, illogic, unsound beliefs, or spiritual danger than nature is tolerant of defiance of gravity.

————-
C.S. Lewis puts it best, yet again:

 Quote:

I have been asked to tell you what Christians believe, and I am going to begin by telling you one thing that Christians do not need to believe. If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you do have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole word is simply one huge mistake. If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest one, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view. But, of course, being a Christian does mean thinking that where Christianity differs from other religions, Christianity is right and they are wrong. As in arithmetic- there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others.

…

If you do not take the distinction between good and bad very seriously, then it is easy to say that anything you find in this world is a part of God. But, of course, if you think some things really bad, and God really good, then you cannot talk like that. You must believe that God is separate from the world and that some of the things we see in it are contrary to His will. Confronted with a cancer or a slum the Pantheist can say, ‘If you could only see it from the divine point of view, you would realize that this also is God.’ The Christian replies. ‘Don’t talk damned nonsense.’ For Christianity is a fighting religion. It thinks God made the world–that space and time, heat and cold, and all the colours and tastes, and all the animals and vegetables, are things that God ‘made up out of His head’ as a man makes up a story. But it also thinks that a great many things have gone wrong with the world that God made and that God insists, and insists very loudly, on putting them right again

This is why Christians are often, even justly, called “intolerant”. We don’t tolerate nonsense, we don’t tolerate lies told in place of truth, and we don’t tolerate being told that “there is no real truth”.

A Roman governor once answered something similar to Jesus.

However, it was in reply to this statement:

 Quote:

You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.

This is also why, without fail, an evangelical, when given the opportunity to explain Christianity, will do so.

“Evangelical” refers to a very specific thing: “Evangel.” comes from Greek euangelion, “good news”. Also known as “The gospel”. (also a translation of the Greek “euangelion”.) And, as a little known fact… the word “angel” means “messenger”. It can be traced back to the word “angelos” – a very close relation to the word above. Angels, in the Bible, were almost exclusively used as messengers for God, to man.

Our passion, and our central focus, is on the spread, and dissemination, of that “good news” – the account of God, becoming man, dying on a cross in place of us, in order to save us from our fall into sin and death. Most importantly, rising from the dead, on the third day, to show us both His power, and His plan for us.

So yes – a world without absolute truth precludes a need for the Truth of the Good News.

A word without absolute truth, is a world without meaning. A world where you cease to exist, for all eternity, when you die. Such a world is not only logically inconsistent – but a horrible thought to contemplate.

————————————–
Part II – Relevance.

—————————–
Whew.

So, now that we’ve addressed the logical instabilities inherent in subjective/relative morals – now, it’s time to address why, despite the fallacies inherent in them – they are used.

——————————
In Francis Schaeffer’s book, “The Christian Manifesto”, he lays out the counter-claims to “The Humanist Manifesto”.

So, before we delve into Schaeffer, we’ll examine this Humanist “manifesto”.

 Quote:

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:

FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought”.

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a ooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in
order to function effectively in the modern world.

FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the echniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

Wow. If you examine this document thoroughly, you will find that this, in a nutshell, is the root of current secular thought.

We shall also find, if we examine the successor to the original Humanist manifesto (which was penned in 1933), the Humanist Manifesto II (1973), that we find not only the root – but the absolute foundation for subjective morality.

Read the following statement, from the second “manifesto”.

 Quote:

We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.

Note the phrase I bolded above.

Now, a short explanation is in order. The term “situational” ethics refers to a school of thought that is very similar to subjective morality. In fact, it is, more or less, the same thing. You can read up on it Here, should you wish. I’ll define it for us, though. Situation ethics, as defined by dictionary.com, is “a system of ethics that evaluates acts in light of their situational context rather than by the application of moral absolutes.” Ok? Now, doesn’t that sound familiar?

So, according to this definition, morality is fluid, and not defined by any set standard – only by context, or the situation.

I know that I didn’t really need to define that, but I hate leaving undefined terms out there when I’ll be leaning heavily on them.

SO. We’ve seen what humanism believes, as it pertains to morality. Now Let’s look at how it views religion… and what religion it seeks to create. Yes, humanism, within the humanist manifesto, seeks to create a religion, based on the assumption that humanity’s place in the world as preeminent.

Note also, the following.

1. The universe was not created.

2. “Continuous process”, as I understand this statement, is endorsing evolution.

3. The mind and the body are one – there is no spirit.

4. Religion is an evolved, natural process.

5. The supernatural does not exist. The only reality is that posed by scientific inquiry – thus, materialism.

6. Everything which came before is no longer valid, as pertains to religion.

7. Religion is human-centric, not God-centric.

8. There is no life after death. All of existence is our mortal lives.

9. Religion is “heightened self” and “social well-being”.

10. Religion, thus, has no ties to the supernatural.

11. Religion focuses on “reality”, and discourages “sentimentality”.

12. Religious aims constitute furtherance of “satisfaction”

13. Religion exists to “fulfill” human life

14. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world. (Communism? :D)

15. Humanism seeks to promote “life”, by moral principles.

Whew. Now, as much as I would really, really like to answer each point from the Christian perspective… I won’t. That is a different subject entirely, and not within the scope of this discussion. However, I will ask you to note, that these tenets line up, very closely, with the direction and intention of modern-day thought,
and morality.

“I’m not a subjective moralist!” I can hear some of you saying this right now. Well, let me ask you this. If your morality is not founded on Biblical principles, but upon something else – what is that “something”? Your own perceptions of morality? Well, what is there to keep you from changing those views? If you DO change them – is it not subject to your own thoughts, feelings, and beliefs on the matter?

What external basis do you compare your own standards to, and thus achieve “objective” morality? The “social” morality? Well… if it founded upon the collective viewpoints of many – what is to keep _that_ from changing? What objective, set apart standard of morality do you adhere to? Is it unchanging? Is it unchangeable? I ask you… is it, in fact, objective, then? I prefer not to call it “objective morality, actually. Objective will bring to mind an object. A physical entity – which can be affected by other physical entities. An object can be moved.. In the deepest sense, objective morality is no more absolute than subjective. Absolute morality is the more correct term. Upon what absolute is your morality founded?

————————————

Francis Schaeffer is considered, by many (and rightfully so) to be the foremost Christian philosopher of the 20th century. He cuts incisively through the fluff that surrounds the penetrating political, moral and spiritual questions we face today. His insight is incredible. if you want to know – truly know what Christianity is, intellectually – read this man’s writing.

 Quote:

The word Humanism should be carefully defined. We should not just use it as a flag, or what younger people might call a “buzz” word. We must understand what we are talking about when we use the word Humanism. Humanism means that the man is the measure of all things. Man is the measure of all things. If this other final reality of material or energy shaped by pure chance is the final reality, it gives no meaning to life. It gives no value system. It gives no basis for law, and therefore, in this case, man must be the measure of all things. So, Humanism properly defined, in contrast, let us say, to the humanities or humanitarianism, (which is something entirely different and which Christians should be in favor of) being the measure of all things, comes naturally, mathematically, inevitably, certainly. If indeed the final reality is silent about these values, then man must generate them from himself.

So. If we do not get our values from an outside source…(God) they must come from ourselves. This, my friends, is the absolute, unequivocally real conclusion we must draw! Be it collective, personal, or “internal” (conscience), this is where they must be derived. Can we, with any sort of truth, define such a view as “objective” truth?

Furthermore, those of you who reject the Bible as literal, absolute truth, yet call it “moral teaching” – are we not siding with the humanists, by interpreting for ourselves that which is right? By picking and choosing for yourselves which truths to accept, and which to reject – are you not simply “borrowing” your own “truth”, while rejecting that which does not “suit” you? in what possible way does such a “morality” lend itself to absolutes – if you reject whatever you decide?

There are two beliefs: Absolutism, and Subjectivism, at heart. Everything which does not fit into “absolutism” is simply a different form of Subjectivism – somewhere on the “sliding scale” we try to call “Objective”, as if by fixing a certain point on that sliding rule, we can ignore the metrics by which that slide rule is divided. Or the fact that such metrics exist!

 Quote:

But it is not only that man must start from himself in the area of knowledge and learning, but any value system must come arbitrarily from man himself by arbitrary choice. More frightening still, in our country, at our own moment of history, is the fact that any basis of law then becomes arbitrary — merely certain people making decisions as to what is for the good of society at the given moment.

Now this is the real reason for the breakdown in morals in our country.
It’s the real reason for the breakdown in values in our country, and it is the reason that our Supreme Court now functions so thoroughly upon the fact of arbitrary law.

They have no basis for law that is fixed, therefore, like the young person who decides to live hedonistically upon their own chosen arbitrary values, society is now doing the same thing legally. Certain few people come together and decide what they arbitrarily believe is for the good of society at the given moment, and that becomes law.

The world view that the final reality is only material or energy shaped by pure chance, inevitably, (that’s the next word I would bring to you ) mathematically — with mathematical certainty — brings forth all these other results which are in our country and in our society which have led to the breakdown in the country — in society — and which are its present sorrows. So, if you hold this other world view, you must realize that it is inevitable that we will come to the very sorrows of relativity and all these other things that are so represented in our country at this moment of history.

Truth is objective, you say? Tell me this. Why does the same clause in the Constitution – namely, the “establishment” clause, mean one thing, up until this century – and now mean it’s exact opposite today? The answer?

Subjectivism. The word “establishment” means the exact same thing, when it was penned as part of the Bill of Rights, as it does today. The meaning, the intent, and even the definitions of words themselves have been twisted into ten kinds of pretzels to attempt to “justify” the “new” intent, without the inconvenience of actually changing the words themselves!

THAT is what moral relativism brings you to. You can lie to others, you can lie to yourself. If you are told a lie enough times, you may even believe it to be true. If you lie to yourself enough, you may end up thinking of yourself as truthful – by your own lights! This, however, does not negate the central issue: When absolutes no longer hold sway, there is no fixed system of morality. Unless you are willing to say this is so, and thus, is always true, at all times – and have some external reference to keep that standard unchanging… you are, in fact, a proponent of subjective morality.

Try to call it “social morality”. Society is the objective reference! Society is in a constant state of flux. If you count on society to provide your “objective reference”, you are up the creek, without a paddle.

 Quote:

It should be noticed that this new dominant world view is a view which is exactly opposite from that of the founding fathers of this country. Now, not all the founding fathers were individually, personally, Christians. That certainly is true. But, nevertheless, they founded the country on the base that there is a God who is the Creator (now I come to the next central phrase) who gave the inalienable rights.

We must understand something very thoroughly. If society — if the state gives the rights, it can take them away — they’re not inalienable. If the states give the rights, they can change them and manipulate them. But this was not the view of the founding fathers of this country. They believed, although not all of them were individual Christians, that there was a Creator and that this Creator gave the inalienable rights — this upon which our country was founded and which has given us the freedoms which we still have — even the freedoms which are being used now to destroy the freedoms.

The reason that these freedoms were there is because they believed there was somebody who gave the inalienable rights. But if we have the view that the final reality is material or energy which has existed forever in some form, we must understand that this view never, never, never would have given the rights which we now know and which, unhappily, I say to you (those of you who are Christians) that too often you take all too much for granted. You forget that the freedoms which we have in northern Europe after the Reformation (and the United States is an extension of that, as would be Australia or Canada, New Zealand, etc.) are absolutely unique in the world.

What does the Declaration of Independence say?

Tell me. Read it. Please tell me what, exactly, is the intent of the people who wrote it. The person who was a Deist wrote this. Not even a Christian, but a Deist!

 Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Oh, please tell me how that can be misconstrued! If not the Creator, [i]WHO gave us these “unalienable” rights!

Tell me! Society? We’ve already discussed that! The State? The State giveth, the State can taketh away! Individuals? How does a “right” granted by an individual constitute an inalienable right?

THIS is the central, absolute problem facing us. If not God, WHO!

Who!

If God does not give us morality – if God is dead, as Nietzsche claims… then who defines morality? Us? Then, good sir – kindly explain how “objective” your morality is. How absolute your morality is. Then, good sir, kindly explain how your conception of morality, when it impinges mine, is any more correct. Or how any “morality” can even conceive itself correct, even in self-deceit, if, by definition, it is no more “correct” than that of anyone else.

Oh, and while you are at it – explain the source of our inalienable rights, if not defined by the state, or society.

 Quote:

Now we have turned it over and we have put it on its head and what we must do is absolutely insist that we return to what the First Amendment meant in the first place — not that religion can’t have an influence into society and into the state — not that. But we must insist that there’s a freedom that the First Amendment really gave. Now with this we must emphasize, and I said it, but let me say it again, we do not want a theocracy! I personally am opposed to a theocracy. On this side of the New Testament I do not believe there is a place for a theocracy until Jesus the King comes back. But that’s a very different thing while saying clearly we are not in favor of a theocracy in name or in fact, from where we are now, where all religious influence is shut out of the processes of the state and the public schools. We are only asking for one thing. We are asking for the freedom that the First
Amendment guaranteed. That’s what we should be standing for.

Interpretation is just a fancy way of saying “change the meaning.”

Do not – I repeat, do not, equivocate. If you are saying no external standard for morality exists, you are, in effect, saying that you are the basis, and the judge, of right, and wrong. This is, and we have demonstratively shown it to be, the very heart of subjective morality. We have also shown that a “pick and choose” version of “absolute”
morality is nothing but a flimsy attempt to play bait and switch with Truth.

Truth either is, or is not, absolute. The moment you say it is otherwise, you begin the path of “subjective” truth. Until we reverse our course, our destination lies fully along the path of the humanist manifesto.

So, along with Mr. Schaeffer, I present to you the Christian Manifesto:
God is God, and we are not. Thus, our standards can only be measured by the yardstick of His eternal truth. To do otherwise is folly.

~Finis
———————————————————-
Further Discussion: Mektek’s Political @ Religious Debate forums

Quote:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”

– Isaiah 55:8-9

You’re right – God doesn’t see things like we do. He’s God. The only
yardstick he uses is “guilty”, or “not guilty”. So really, by
categorizing one sin as worse than another, we’re guilty of the same
thing we profess when calling someone on saying “a lie is not as bad as
murder” – which is untrue. That was a very perceptive statement, and I
thank you for pointing that out. I needed to hear it.

However, Jesus also said this, while He was surrounded by a crowd of
children, as they listened to the Son of God Himself teach them:

Quote:

But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to
stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his
neck, and he were thrown into the sea.

– Mark 9:42

So, in another way, Jesus gave perhaps one of the strongest warnings in
all the Bible to those who think to prey on children. So, there’s a
case for both, but again, I appreciate you pointing that out.

God, however, the more I learn of Him, confounds my mind more and more. Which is as it should be.

A couple thoughts on God, since I’m writing.

Quote:

Indeed these are the mere edges of His ways, And how small a whisper we
hear of Him! But the thunder of His power who can understand?”

– Job 26:14

God is awesome. To this same man, who God held up as an example of a
righteous follower, He replied to Job’s simple question, amounting to
“why is this happening to me” – with 64 questions of his own. These
questions were rhetorical, and amounted to one cosmically massive
answer – “because I am God – and you are not! Do you trust me to do
well by you, or not?”

Job’s answer, like the answer we all will give one day, was this – He could give no other:

Quote:

Then Job answered the LORD and said, “I know that You can do all
things, And that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted. ‘Who is this that
hides counsel without knowledge?’ “Therefore I have declared that which
I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not
know.” ‘Hear, now, and I will speak; I will ask You, and You instruct
me.’ “I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear; But now my eye
sees You; Therefore I retract, And I repent in dust and ashes.”

God is sovereign.

The same God who will judge creation, and all that is in it has also
promised life – life without end, life without limit, or sorrow, or
hurt – to those who believe Him.

This same God, who will one day “tread the wine press of the fierce
wrath of God, the Almighty”, comes this poetically beautiful statement,
for our comfort, and to give us peace.

Quote:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down
from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow
of turning.

– James 1:17