A Believers Critique Of The Humanist Manifesto

And if that should happen, where is the problem? Speaking as a Christian and Theist, the evidence seems to show that overall, membership in some religious organization is still relatively common and strong but where is the problem if religions were abandoned? Well the evidence show us that international relations have never been as peaceful and cooperative as they are today. Nor is there any evidence of a decline of the United States morally or financially. The most common false religion today seems to be "Biblical Evangelical Fundamentalist Christianity" perhaps followed at a great distance by Radical Fundamentalist Islam. You have not shown how rejecting any god or acknowledging humanity as the source of wisdom and logic might be a problem or how there could be any other source of wisdom and logic than humans.

Try telling the truth for a change Phat and stop lying. Humans wrote the stories in the Bibles and wrote them for humans and so of course the characters in the stories are humans.What is wrong with disregarding ancient religious beliefs? You disregard almost all ancient religious beliefs. You disregard Thor and Zeus and Apollo and Coyote and Ganesha and Ra and Anubus and Ma'at and Eros and Uranus and Shiva and Brahma as well as literally thousands of other ancient gods and religious beliefs. You discard Islam and Judaism and Taoism and Confucianism and Zoroastrianism and Hinduism and Buddism and Shintoism as well as the German and Norse and English and Celtic pagan religions. The same folk that made you a final authority Phat. And what is wrong with that?You go on and on echoing your disagreement but you never present any support or reason or logic for why your position has any more merit than their position.Edited by jar, : forgot to include the paragraph where Phat again misrepresents my position and alleges facts not in evidence.

Yet you disregard many ancient religious beliefs so what is wrong with disregarding one more? Which may well be true but offers nothing to support that position.

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.

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.

But again, what is The Need For Divine Intervention?

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?

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!"

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

Yup, I don't get it and what is pitiful?

Again Phat, let me say what I believe. And think about what you write. If humans are not ultimately responsible then God is responsible for all the problems. Or God is unable to successfully oppose some other force or unwilling to.That makes God a royal asshole.But what I actually say is that even if Original Sin were real it is irrelevant. We are still responsible for what we do.The great con is selling the idea that some belief or act or payment can mediate the effects of Original Sin. And it is both a very successful con as well as an absolutely legal con; bettern the lottery.It is selling the idea that God or Jesus will assume your debts.But the reality is that there is no evidence that God has actively intervened in the past.

Why should the beliefs of conservative Christians be anything but comedic relief?

I am a Christian.I am a conservative, but not a raving lunatic fascist conservative which seems the norm in today's Republican cabal.

Let's see if the Mosque and Temple and Satanist Cabal are given the same funding.

We live in the US faith. If public money are used to fund a Christian School playground then the local Madrassa has exactly the same rights to public funds.Religious Freedom means the Muslim Faith must be treated like the Christian Faith. Jewish Faith must be treated like the Christian Faith. Satanist Faith must be treated like the Christian Faith. Buddhist Faith must be treated like the Christian Faith. Hindu Faith must be treated like the Christian Faith.Thank God!