No God? Eat, drink and be merry (Christmas)

As Lepi quoted, actually, Mr. Opus Dei, I do dispute:

"Without a God or a created order, morality becomes relative and each person ends up deciding for himself or herself what will be best, even if that means not respecting other persons."

Making it further relative to a book, and an interpretation of a book does not bring respect or consideration, only makes it the *more* removed. And 'relative' To a book and an interpretation of a book.

It makes things *muddy.* Not clear.

Makes you say to your *flock* that there's something evil about everyone else. Some of them are scared enough to believe it, and goodness by any standard is not the result.

You treat the people like *sheep* or else slaughter sheep as possibly-cleverly-disguised 'wolves.'

I?

I am a renegade sheepdog, Shepherd.

And I would like to present a labor dispute.

This is not a holiday of your vanity. This is a holiday of people coming together around a common fire and some pretty lights.

If you find that threatening, Shepherd, you ought to reconsider your view of what you think you're protecting.

Without a God or a created order, morality becomes relative and each person ends up deciding for himself or herself what will be best, even if that means not respecting other persons. Although the humanist admonishes us not to harm others, this principle itself ends up being relative and consequently ineffective. Only when others are seen as God's creatures made in his image and likeness is there a real basis for the moral imperative to respect them. **************************************************************************************
Nonsense. Living beings instinctively know that what is good for the tribe is good for the individuals in that tribe, and will, for the most part, act for the greater good of the tribe. This is true of the human species, as well as non-human species. In both human and non-human species, individuals who act for their own good at the expense of the good of the tribe, are removed from the tribe.

A few thoughts on Bohlin's empty words:

"The (rather old) humanist idea of being good without God goes very little beyond simple catch-phrases like Be good for goodness' sake.'"

With all due tolerance, Mr. Bohlin, how would you know?

"Only when others are seen as God's creatures made in his image and likeness is there a real basis for the moral imperative to respect them."

Or, as history has shown time and again, to victimize, demonize, and marginalize them if they don't profess your faith. Hundreds of years of horrifically brutalized bodies line the paths of religious "righteousness."

"Its Godless world-view leaves individuals wandering through a meaningless cosmos, and the most reasonable response is hedonism: eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we--individually and collectively--die."

What about those for whom humanism means helping the needy person right in front of you because he needs your help and you are there? What about those for whom "eat, drink, and be merry" is someone else's idea of a good time? What about those for whom kindness -- in this moment and in this place -- is the finest thing we can do?

"[Christianity] holds that only with God's help given to us by Jesus Christ can we overcome this suffering, especially the worst kind of suffering, moral suffering."

Ah, yes. The moral suffering that allows the church to ignore the more expensive physical suffering and, thereby, to abdicate responsibility for people's pain. Mother Teresa was an ace at this kind of rationalization. Instead of giving readily available pain medication to the dying people of Calcutta, she told them that their pain would bring them closer to [her] God.

"The promise of eternal life gives meaning to human existence and within this horizon each of our acts take on eternal significance."

People who are not religious and do not believe in "eternal life" are often deeply spiritual. Their lives have great meaning because they use them to help others. If we feel that "our acts" must "take on eternal significance," aren't we being a bit grandiose? A bit God-like?

"People see soon enough that the world of the humanists is a cold, dead world."

How sad that you would say something so demeaning about the loving and productive lives that millions of people live simply because they do not share your view that there is only one way to live a good life.

You are a sad specimen of humanity, Mr. Bohlin.

I mean, you know, Padre, the commercialism and triviality isn't cause people are 'Godless.' It's cause they're trying to fill a hole in their lives that *you* dug.

People are tired of you supporting commercialists and then blaming 'humanness.'

Actually, 'Vicar,' the humanists have to band together, not cause they are trying to promote a religion, but because the likes of *you* insist that 'without (your) God (And whatever interpretation of 'rules' is in fashion politically to hurt others this decade,) that people must be selfish, evil, and incapable of goodness:

To wit. Demonized. Dehumanized.

"I am not too worried about the new humanist campaign against God. People see soon enough that the world of the humanists is a cold, dead world. They seek, once again, the warmth of divine Love that lies hidden in a manger."

It's not a 'campaign against God' especially not if you conflate your politics and your own defamations of others and political and social ambitions *with* 'God.'

The idea that 'secular humanists are attacking God' is an idea *you've* been trying to sell since I was in first grade. It's where I first heard the term to begin with. The likes of you saying these were horrible lazy selfish people, while the pious Catholics drove to Church in their fancy cars and showed off their furs and the priests who were on the make cause the queer and vulnerable kids wouldn't be believed... Were passed off as 'struggling with sin' and telling people to hate queers ...while... Using that hate to cover their actions.

When I was really very young, I'd hear the Gospels and wonder when JC was gonna go punk rock on the very place I was sitting.

Yeah. Whatever.

"Without God" this, "Without God" that.

More displacement, denial, and defamation.

You're not talking about Deus, you're talking about your 'Opus.'

Christmas hasn't become secular cause people 'lost the meaning of the season.'

It's cause *you* have.

I'll be taking that holly back, now.

Opus Dei have been at the forefront of efforts to suppress bringing the issue of priestly homosexual non celibacy and paedophillia into the light of public scrutiny.

What is it again that you don't worry about?

This is a case where godlessness and secularism is preferable to perversion and secrecy.

Moral relativism is a poor argument against humanism since you, yourself, stand on a different side of morality with respect to many other religions and beliefs. To say that your particular god and moral system is superior is simply self-satisfied hubris.

Scandinavian countries are among the least religious in the world, yet are consistently in the top countries of standard of living, with very low crime rates. My Norwegian parents taught me to be the best person I can be, strive to be kind hearted, and to love others. Imparting this equivalent sense of the golden rule to my siblings and me, without the guise of religion, was simply natural to them. My purpose in life, that you imply that I lack for not being Christian, is a goal I share with other humanists - to seek the best in myself and others, and to believe in my own ability to make a positive difference in the world. I seek this because of a personal sense of what is right, not because I live in fear of punishment by a god. Which reason is more pure?

Plato asserted long ago that religion provides mythical clothing and mythical authority to a morality that is there to begin with. Humanists, Christians, Muslims, and Buddhists all have their examples of good and bad people. Thankfully, the majority of the world's citizens are "good people" and wish to live in a peaceful world that fosters mutual respect for one another.

Humanists and nonbelievers have been marginalized for centuries. Like other religions or philosophies, they have the right to collectively carve out a recognized space in society. It is refreshing to see a unified movement stir that seeks to simply be good for the sake of being good, to bring awareness of the oppressive side of religion, to ask serious questions about widespread beliefs that have no evidentiary basis, and to provide an alternative, supportive community for people to become involved in.

This nascent movement will make its mistakes. Perhaps Santa hats are not the way to go; perhaps some of their more exuberant members will make remarks that are a bit caustic. Please forgive them these trespasses. Remember, your belief system has inflicted much pain on bystanders throughout the centuries. And, hopefully, it does not bring you too much discomfort to realize that they too have unique individual as well as noble collective purposes in life, ones that are not so dissimilar from your own.

If the only reason one has for being GOOD is that GOD will get you - then IMO that is not true morality. If all that stands between you and raping your neighbor is a belief in GOD then how is that moral. I have known plenty of atheists who are good for goodness sake and they are some of the most moral people I know.
Every religion, even those who believe in multiple Gods & Goddesses have a golden rule to do unto others. People know that lying, stealing, cheating, raping, killing and hurting others is wrong. They know that it is wrong because they wouldn't want it done to them. Treat your fellowman thusly-it really does not need a belief in a deity. What matters is that you are ethical. There is no real assault on Christmas - all made up bunk. The Christians are the ones getting all bent out of shape if one wishes them anything other than Merry Christmas.

"Christianity does not deny that there is evil (sin) and that there is a great deal of suffering in the world. But it holds that only with God's help given to us by Jesus Christ can we overcome this suffering, especially the worst kind of suffering, moral suffering."

You really don't have a clue. It is clear that in your adult life you have never loved any other human being.

Well, ask a few of those Irish children who were raped and abused by the priests they trusted. They'll set you straight about the nature of suffering.

I can assure you that Jesus Christ doesn't give Christians a Get Out Of Jail Card that overcomes suffering. That is another story they tell us, along with the one about guardian angels.

In the end, Christians are like non-Christians in that they are people who are no better than they are.

[QUOTE]Secular humanism is born of a mistaken idea of human autonomy which sees God as a threat to human freedom and so to the progress of humanity[/QUOTE]

Remember, we don't believe in your god, we don't see it as a threat ... we see it as a delusion on your part.

We do see that such deluded people foisting this delusion on the rest of us as a threat to human freedom and definitely a retarding factor in the progress of humanity.

It is this gullibility, credulity, and delusion which are the threats. The particular delusion - in your chase the christian gods ... well, the details don't matter.