Which God do Humanists reject?

Bloggersvilleusa: Is Yahoo! Answers really the best forum for an intelligent discussion of religion and spirituality?

Mr. Spong, I am a Humanist (though not a member of the AHA) and I agree, for the most part, with your response; and I also thank you for being much more respectful of non-theists than many other columnists who responded to this question.

My position is that the religious and the non-religious must start finding ways to have meaningful exchanges without resorting to ad hominem attacks and simple bad-mannered name-calling. The last thing we really need in the twenty-first century is more of the same old hate-mongering dressed up in modern clothing.

Skowronek said yesterday:

"I've never had to shoo an atheist or agnostic off of my front porch, when they came hawking their philosophy and trying to rustle up new paying customers. Why? Because they don't DO THAT."

-

I love the complete double standard expressed in that statement. There's no need to shoo atheists or agnostics off the front porch when schools, the media, TV and the web in our homes are suffused with atheist/humanist ideology.

Atheist and humanist trolls abound in web forums that are intended for intelligent discussions about religion. Don't think so? Visit the "Religion and Spirituality" section at Yahoo Answers, which is infested with atheist trolls who post ridiculous "questions" and spam legitimate questions with dozens of irrelevant and hateful answers:

http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/index;_ylt=Ahcz4QuGwZQYO2EKMIYqJqme5HNG;_ylv=3?sid=396545454

Religion & Spirituality is in the upper right corner of the Society & Culture list.

"Susan Jacoby, who posts on "On Faith" considers herself an atheist and super rational and claims that people doing good arises from acting naturally. She thinks that doing bad is an aberration."

I said humanist, not atheist. I wouldn't consider Jacoby completely rational, since here posts here reflect a passionate anger toward religion. Plus, being either a humanist or an atheist doesn't mean that one automatically considers religion bad, and one can consider it bad without being a humanist or atheist.

"Belief in the transcendent is a matter of faith, not fact and since any transcendent reality is beyond physical proof, by definition, it will always remain in the realm of faith."

The definition itself is the problem, because it's a tautology. Anyone can make any sort of claim about things that allegedly exist beyond physical proof and insist that no one can challenge the claim. We have no basis for saying that the transcendental exists or that it doesn't exist. Without proof either way, the intellectually responsible position is to treat the matter as an unknown. You might have a point about faith if we were talking about faith IN something, like faith in one's spouse or one's country. But the existence or non-existence of an object is not a matter of opinion.

"Faith should not be blind. If belief does not make life better, why would a rational person bother?"

What do you mean by blind? The point is that the universe exists independent of human thought and opinion, and this includes any transcendental. Either it exists or it doesn't, and human faith or the lack of it is irrelevant to whether the transcendent exists.

And "make life better" is too broad. Would you be more specific? That seems to imply that one should also have faith in the existence of things that CAN be disproven.

"And any rational humanist would argue that humans have the capacity for both good and bad."

Susan Jacoby, who posts on "On Faith" considers herself an atheist and super rational and claims that people doing good arises from acting naturally. She thinks that doing bad is an aberration.

"The question of whether a transcendent exists is a question of fact,"

This is not true. Belief in the transcendent is a matter of faith, not fact and since any transcendent reality is beyond physical proof, by definition, it will always remain in the realm of faith. Faith should not be blind. If belief does not make life better, why would a rational person bother?

Also, humanism and atheism aren't the same thing. One can be a theist or deist and still assert that humans have the capacity for both good and bad. And one can be an atheist and still assert that humans have no capacity for good.

"The problem with humanism that denies the transcendent is that it is a philosophy based upon the fiction that humans are inherently good."

Not only are those two things straw men, one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. The question of whether a transcendent exists is a question of fact, and has nothing to do with whether humans are inherently good or inherently bad. And any rational humanist would argue that humans have the capacity for both good and bad. They are countering the specific Christian theology that claims that humans no capacity for good on their own.

I've never had to shoo an atheist or agnostic off of my front porch, when they came hawking their philosophy and trying to rustle up new paying customers. Why? Because they don't DO THAT.

Maybe we can all agree that is something to view with warmth and humanity.

But then again, I always mute commercials and recycle any unsolicited catalogues. Even the ones from companies whose wares I do want to look through. So I have no qualms about sending traveling merchants away, no matter how fervently they believe in their wares.

"The heart cannot desire what the eye cannot see." Dutch proverb

I'm sorry Bishop Sprong, but you hardly speak for all humanists. There are many that deny all existence of a transcendent reality, not just the big guy in the sky, especially in this case since this humanist organization is directly connected to atheism.

The problem with humanism that denies the transcendent is that it is a philosophy based upon the fiction that humans are inherently good. That tenet is belied by thousands of years of history. Blaming the history of war and genocide on the corruption of civilization is a conceit that just doesn't fly anymore.

Counterww

Can you say passive / aggresswive?

... code?

,,, hidden meaning?

... semantics gymnastics?

Anything to avoid the awful truth about yourself and the false doctrines which you promote as Christian.

DouginMoz

"You do realize that most of the scientists that you mentioned as destroying God, did not destroy their own faith in God and remained avid Christians in spitre of their discoveries."
__
You miss the point enterely. He is saying there is an evolution of worship that Kepler, Newton, etc were able to progress as our understanding, both scientific and cultural, grew. The rigid lines of a "god" as written about 2000 years ago can adapt and change to meet needs of 21st century spiritual community.

Mr. Spong,
You do realize that most of the scientists that you mentioned as destroying God, did not destroy their own faith in God and remained avid Christians in spitre of their discoveries.

DILD.

Christians don't hate any people. They hate the sin of homosexuality, which is outside the plan of God, as is adultery, divorce, lying, etc etc.

For you to assume you know someone on the Internet- that they hate gays, is a big error on your part, and just assuming something about someone you don't know and could not know.

It is typical of your rants and posts. Erroneous as is par for the course for you.

No Navin, what most Atheists in their elitist self serving ego maniac attitude do is , with immaturity- is not realize that truth can be found in the Word of God and that Jesus is the savior of the world, and that some truth- like in the NT, is real and can be found if asked for.

It is actually ignorant to think you have truth outside of Christ . This is really loving truth.

It is telling that people adore the image of a vengeful, violent, and hateful God - it is a portrayal of themselves - and they delight in their perceived power to destroy others. They even ascribe these same attributes to the Christ. How sad for them, and for us since we as individuals must contend with their ignorance and egoism. Their purses are full of scripture clippings they brandish as talismans to ward off gentle thought. Once you believe that God is embodied in and speaks through a burning bush, you'll believe anything.

Yes, there is a sad commentary here.

It is that Mr. Spong claims to speak for the God of the Bible. He does not.

God hates sin – no matter what the sin is. There is no room for any sin in heaven. That is why Jesus died on the cross – to pay for the sin of mankind. Believers are to take a stand for God and against all sin.

You are either for God or against Him.

Matthew 12:30
" He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

The words of the Bible can be difficult to bear – their purpose is clear as stated in the book of Hebrews.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Eastcoastcomentator said:

"The Bible is clear that there is only one God, only one path to God. Mr. Spong's views on homosexuality, the resurrection and the holiness of God are in error."

Isn't this a sad and pitiful commentary on just what many people who call themselves Christians really believe?

This guy puts hatred of gay people right up their with the ressurrection of Christ as a central core belief of Christians.

I do not really know what to call his religion, but "Christian", it is not.

With regards to gay people, Christians repeat over and over their horrifying cliche which is a BIG LIE, that they hate the sin, not the sinner. But this very slogon with its hidden meaning is code, for "hate the gays in the name of Christ."

(typo - meant "point 7 and physical resurrection")

Interesting. Looked further into it and found the 12 points for reform.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_New_Christianity_for_a_New_World )

I can more or less agree, except with point 7 and psychical resurrection. Most likely it didn't happen, but it didn't happen for a different reason: his followers had the shock of their lives when he died; they realized he had prophecized it and seemingly purposefully gone into it. So they had no choice but to follow him into death, without, obviously, dying themselves, and they experienced their own deaths through his death. They ended up on the other side of death, with life _after_ death - in heaven, yet alive and on earth, with a different view and experience of life, unrestrained by fear of death and an existence limited by an approaching end. It was different kid of (experiencing) existence, open and unending, stretching into infinity.
How this felt they could not explain to latter converts who had not been through it themselves, so they added the story of the resurrection to the gospels.

Eastcoastcommentator wrote: The Bible is clear that there is only one God, only one path to God. (...) Exodus 20:2-4 (...) "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before Me. ___________________________________________

The first of the "Ten Commandments" (one of 613) clearly indicates to the reader that there is more than one god. The order just requires devout followers to worship Yahweh first. The Jews of the day were henotheists. Their monotheism didn't come about for many hundreds of years after Moses. Credit Classical Greek thought -especially Plato- for the shift. PS: Even after generations of searching, no archaeological evidence has ever been found of any post-Exodus Jewish desert wanderings.

Mr. Spong says "Is the theistic God the only possible definition of the Holy? I do not think so,"

He response indicates he does not believe the Bible.

The Bible is clear that there is only one God, only one path to God. Mr. Spong's views on homosexuality, the resurrection and the holiness of God are in error.

Exodus 20:2-4 (New American Standard Bible)

"I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.
"You shall have no other gods before Me.

John 14:6
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

2 Timothy 4:3-4 (New American Standard Bible)
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.

" Darwin destroyed the distance we once imagined that existed between ourselves as a special creation made in God's image and the animal kingdom, which the religious community has never endowed with an eternal soul or with a life that is of ultimate meaning or value."

Your statement is technically correct, in that Buddhism is not actually a religion but rather a psychology and a cosmology.

However Buddhism considers the inner nature of animals to be identical in nature and worth to that of humans.

"dead saviors"

But a risen savior is something else entirely.

"but entirely within yourself"

"Most atheists are not against Truth"

Actually most atheists are against any truth that they does not meet their own subjective standard of proof. Most atheists are not atheists at all. By arrogating the absolute authority to decice what constitutes "truth" they reveal themselves as autotheists.

That god-reality that is destroyed by science is the superstitious god that lives in books, saviors, and prophets.

Abandon the superstition and believe in God that is Truth beyond books, beyond saviors, beyond prophets, but entirely within yourself.

Most atheists are not against Truth. They are against the superstitious ignorance taught by religion. We should all be so devoted to Truth that we reject the superstition of idols in Kabaa, dead saviors, last prophets, named gods, holy writ... For when we abandon our clinging to our own ignorance, we can be free to love Truth itself.

hariaum