A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

And where is the problem there? You are aware Phat that there are these things called Treaties?Next...From your quote:

quote:

---

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so.

---

Compare that to the comment from The Rt. Rev. Bennett J. Sims, Episcopal Bishop of Atlanta in A Pastoral Statement on Creation and Evolution.

quote:

---

It seems important that the Episcopal Church in this diocese add to its brief resolution a statement of its own teaching. The office of Bishop is historically a teaching office, and I believe it is timely to offer instruction as to this Church's understanding of what has become a contested public issue.

​

To begin with creation is a fact. The world exists. We exist. Evolution is a theory. As a theory, evolution expresses human response to the fact of creation, since existence raises questions: how did creation come to be, and why?

​

The question of why is the deeper one. It takes us into the realm of value and purpose. This urgent inquiry is expressed in human history through religion and statements of faith. Christians cherish the Bible as the source book of appropriating the point and purpose of life. We regard the Bible as the Word of God, His revelation of Himself, the meaning of His work and the place of humanity in it.

​

The question of how is secondary, because human life has been lived heroically and to high purpose with the most primitive knowledge of the how of creation. Exploration of this secondary question is the work of science. Despite enormous scientific achievement, humanity continues to live with large uncertainty. Science, advancing on the question of how, will always raise as many questions as it answers. The stars of the exterior heavens beyond us and the subatomic structure of the interior deep beneath us beckon research as never before.

​

Religion and science are therefore distinguishable, but in some sense inseparable, because each is an enterprise, more or less, of every human being who asks why and how in dealing with existence. Religion and science interrelate as land and water, which are clearly not the same but need each other, since the land is the basin for all the waters of the earth and yet without the waters the land would be barren of the life inherent to its soil.

​

In the Bible the intermingling of why and how is evident, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. There the majestic statements of God's action, its value and the place of humanity in it, use an orderly and sequential statement of method. The why of the divine work is carried in a primitive description of how the work was done.

​

But even here the distinction between religion and science is clear. In Genesis there is not one creation statement but two. They agree as to why and who, but are quite different as to how and when. The statements are set forth in tandem, chapter one of Genesis using one description of method and chapter two another. According to the first, humanity was created, male and female, after the creation of plants and animals. According to the second, man was created first, then the trees, the animals and finally the woman and not from the earth as in the first account, but from the rib of the man. Textual research shows that these two accounts are from two distinct eras, the first later in history, the second earlier.

​

From this evidence, internal to the very text of the Bible, we draw two conclusions.

​

First, God's revelation of purpose is the overarching constant. The creation is not accidental, aimless, devoid of feeling. Creation is the work of an orderly, purposeful Goodness. Beneath and around the cosmos are the everlasting arms. Touching the cosmos at every point of its advance, in depth and height, is a sovereign beauty and tenderness. Humanity is brooded over by an invincible Love that values the whole of the world as very good; that is the first deduction: God is constant.

​

Second, creation itself and the human factors are inconstant. Creation moves and changes. Human understanding moves and changes. Evolution as a contemporary description of the how of creation is anticipated in its newness by the very fluidity of the biblical text by the Bible's use of two distinct statements of human comprehension at the time of writing. As a theoretical deduction from the most careful and massive observation of the creation, the layers and deposits and undulations of this everchanging old earth, evolution is itself a fluid perception. It raises as many questions as it answers. Evolution represents the best formulation of the knowledge that creation has disclosed to us, but it is the latest word from science, not the last.

​

If the world is not God's, the most eloquent or belligerent arguments will not make it so. If it is God's world, and this is the first declaration of our creed, then faith has no fear of anything the world itself reveals to the searching eye of science.

​

Insistence upon dated and partially contradictory statements of how as conditions for true belief in the why of creation cannot qualify either as faithful religion or as intelligent science. Neither evolution over an immensity of time nor the work done in a sixday week are articles of the creeds. It is a symptom of fearful and unsound religion to contend with one another as if they were. Historic creedal Christianity joyfully insists on God as sovereign and frees the human spirit to trust and seek that sovereignty in a world full of surprises.

---

Seems he agrees with the Manifesto position. I simply try to repeat the Gospel Jesus preached. He preached responsibility and if you were honest you would realize that WE are responsible. And rightly so since Original Sin is just a pitiful copout and the most profitable con game of all time. No God ever solved terrorism, only humans can solve terrorism.

Humans can be shown to exist. Gods cannot. It's not about believing in humans over God, it's just practical. We should be thinking long term about the future of our species. We owe it to our descendants to stop our wasteful, irresponsible system from destroying their inheritance. At the end of the day, our future generations are the only way that we know for sure, life goes on.I have a hypothetical for you Phat. Suppose humanism swept the globe in the next decade. People everywhere more or less abandoned God in favour of co-operative human advancement. Fast forward another decade or two and everything is going well, we've built infrastructure in the third world so that everyone has the basics, almost stopped violence with relentless promotion of co-operation and the visible benefits that come with it, people are flourishing. How could God not see this as good? His own vanity? I understand you don't believe we could actually get to that point after abandoning God, yes? Would he intervene to prevent our peace and prosperity?

Some background.I am a lifelong theist and Christian who is a member of one of the larger recognized sects.Phat and I have been having this same discussion now for over a decade and there is a suggestion I have often made that relates to the second paragraph of your post.Ask Phat what I keep telling him to throw away.

If things were going well and we were being nicer to each other, I see no reason God would need to intervene. If, however, we short-circuited, or somehow were doing something that displeased God, I suppose that He would have every right to intervene. Time will tell, I suppose.Oh and by the way, jar always wanted me to throw God away. It seemed preposterous until I actually realized that IF GOD exists, I shouldn't have any worries of disposing of Him. Edited by Phat, : added comment

But again, what is The Need For Divine Intervention?

You can answer your own question by answering this: What is the need for a second coming?

Actually no, that don't help. Is there a need for a second coming or is that just another example only pertinent to a particular subset of dogma?So again, what is The Need For Divine Intervention?

Is Phat telling us that his Christ is illogical, unreasonable and unreal?

If Christ is coming back, He is coming back for everyone...not just those who believe in Him or those who subscribe to a particular subset of dogma. And to answer your question, Divine Intervention is needed if humans fail. In the past, the nation itself would repent and pray for Divine Intervention. These days its hard telling what people would do.

Why is Divine Intervention needed even in that situation? Isn't it better to say "Human's, don't keep screwing this up?" And even if we look at the Bible stories, none talk about God stepping in and making things right but lots of the stories talk about God saying "You keep screwing up you gonna suffer!". And in the past there are no examples of God listening and intervening. Only humans do that. Thank God more and more people are saying "Well it's our responsibility to deal with the problems and not expect God to fix them!"

I'm not sure what instances you mean here. Tell me about the nation repenting.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Like they failed before the Flood? Kill them all and let God sort them out?

At least he is honest about it.

What exactly does the picture you posted have to do with what I said?