”The outcome is a reversal from only two years ago, when a majority of the church’s regions, known as presbyteries, voted against ordaining openly gay candidates.In a manner resembling the desire for freedom espoused by Atheists, this minister celebrates the freedom from sexual sin which has arrived:
This time, 19 of the church’s 173 presbyteries switched their votes from no to yes in recent months. The Twin Cities presbytery, which covers Minneapolis and St. Paul, cast the deciding vote at its meeting on Tuesday. The vote was 205 to 56, with 3 abstentions.
Cynthia Bolbach, moderator of the church’s General Assembly, its highest legislative body, said in a phone interview from Minneapolis after the vote: “Everyone was civil. There was no applause, no cheering. It was just reflective of the fact that we are moving forward one other step.”
Although by the time the vote was taken in Minneapolis the outcome was expected, Presbyterian church officials said that even a few months ago they would not have predicted that the church was ready to change its policy.
“All of us are surprised,” said the Rev. Gradye Parsons, the church’s stated clerk, its highest elected official. He attributed the turnabout in the votes to both the growing acceptance of homosexuality in the larger culture, and to church members simply wearying of the conflict.
“We’ve been having this conversation for 33 years, and some people are ready to get to the other side of this decision,” he said. “Some people are going to celebrate this day because they’ve worked for it for a long time, and some people will mourn this day because they think it’s a totally different understanding of Scripture than they have.”
“I hope that going forward we can stay together and be faithful witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ,” he said. “
”Longtime advocates of gay equality in the Presbyterian Church savored the day. The Rev. Heidi Vardeman, senior minister of Macalaster Plymouth United Church in St. Paul and a spokeswoman for a pro-gay church group called More Light Presbyterians, said in an interview, “Finally, the denomination has seen the error of its ways and it will repent, which means, literally, to turn around.
“I’ve had young people who have been exemplary, obviously good candidates for the ministry,” she said, “but then you have to have this weird conversation in which you say that, umm, because they might be gay or lesbian, it’s not going to work. But now we’re free! We can endorse and propose and assist and elect those whom God has called.”
NY Times
Now if God actually had anything to do with the Bible and its tenets, then it is doubtful that he is calling blatantly unrepentant and active homosexuals to be leaders and icons. And it is doubtful that he actually would approve of selecting or rejecting morals by majority vote.
These days sexual morality is being defined by whether there seems to be a victim of the activity. Sex between consenting adults is seen as benign, victim-wise. But Judeo-Christian morality has never been based on victimhood. The morality of Judeo-Christianity is based on action-consequence for individuals, and on the development of personal character traits that will tend toward producing positive consequences for personal actions. This is functionally opposite from the idea that if it feels good and there are no victims then it is OK. Do not fornicate is not the same as do not fornicate, unless it feels good, etc. Degeneracy does not always produce victims, except for the degradation of the actor. If no self-discipline is expected, no self-discipline will be produced.
32 comments:
From the group Mass Resistance...
"Since homosexual marriage became “legal” the rates of HIV / AIDS have gone up considerably in Massachusetts. This year public funding to deal with HIV/AIDS has risen by $500,000. As the homosexual lobby group MassEquality wrote to their supporters after successfully persuading the Legislature to spend that money: "With the rate of HIV infections rising dramatically in Massachusetts, it's clear the fight against AIDS is far from over."
Citing “the right to marry” as one of the “important challenges” in a place where “it’s a great time to be gay”, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health helped produce The Little Black Book, Queer in the 21st Century, a hideous work of obscene pornography which was given to kids at Brookline High School on April 30, 2005. Among other things, it gives “tips” to boys on how to perform oral sex on other males, masturbate other males, and how to “safely” have someone urinate on you for sexual pleasure. It also included a directory of bars in Boston where young men meet for anonymous sex.
Given the extreme dysfunctional nature of homosexual relationships, the Massachusetts Legislature has felt the need to spend more money every year to deal with skyrocketing homosexual domestic violence. This year $350,000 was budgeted, up $100,000 from last year."
Aint gay marraige grand?
So you are saying that homosexual behaviour is degenerate?
Regarding this sort of thing being a "surrender to the pagans in the pews" - is it that, or is the motive to avoid persecution by the secular society?
The Atheo-Left, as you call them (good name, btw!) are seldom hesitant to resort to violence in enforcing their views. In fact they seem to prefer that method.
In the late 1980's two activists, Marshal Kirk and Russell Madsen, set out to change the morality of the world, as insane as that might seem. The wrote a strategy in a book, “After the Ball”, which contained these points:
1. Talk about gays and gayness loudly and often as possible.
2. Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
3. Give homosexual protectors a just cause.
4. Make gays look good.
5. Make victimizers look bad.
6. Solicit funds: the buck stops here (i.e. get corporate America to financially support the homosexual cause).
The first change was to adopt the term “gay”. Along with that the older terms used by homosexuals amongst themselves were declared obscene – terms like flaming faggot, etc. Homosexuals were declared victimized by the very terms they had used for themselves.
Next the gays staged a coup inside the American Psychological Association which overnight changed the status of homosexuality from a deviant behavior to an acceptable one. This marked the first time in history that homosexuality was declared normal rather than deviant.
The gays claimed victimhood for themselves, positioning themselves for protection by the Atheo-Left for which victimhood is the main currency. This gave them immediate influence in the media of all types, from television news to Hollywood, and leverage into the Leftist accommodationist dogma being installed into the school systems (Mommy and Daddy are ignorant, teachers and kids are enlightened). This was done in parallel with the declaration of sexual experimentation as normal by organizations such as Planned Parenthood which were allowed into school lessons.
Constant demonizing of the anti-gays became standard fare. The murder of homosexual Matthew Sheppard was headline news for months, even though the killers didn’t know that he was homosexual; the murders committed by homosexuals, such as the murder Jason Shephard, found no media outlets to speak of. Said one media guru, ‘there is nothing to be taught by publicizing those”.
These were used to fight for Hate Crime laws, issuing credibility and legitimacy to what was previously deviant behavior.
Under the aegis of hate crime protection, the attacks on marriage, family and church has become standard fare. Anything that excludes gays is a potential hate crime, and the gays are perpetual victims. This particularly applied to the church, which is now said to propagate hate if it preaches the Gospel accounts of homosexual deviancy. Such preaching could be a crime, punishable with the force of extra imprisonment as a “hate crime”. The attacks are serious. They have the force of law, and are intended to victimize anyone who disagrees.
Now, has the behavior changed? Has the mental state behind the behavior changed? What has changed is the aggressiveness of the individuals thus inflicted, and their threats against the rest of us. All of which is accommodated by the accompanying mental disturbance of the Atheo-Left which has found in gays a highly visible victim for them to support. The homosexual and deviant behavior has escalated in places like San Francisco, where several annual street galas feature open oral and anal sex, along with whips, chains and plenty of urination on each other. This is not to be seen as deviant; it has been declared normal behavior.
In fact they have declared a new deviancy: Homophobia.
They’re here. And they’re queer.
Ref.
1. Kirk, Madsen; "After the Ball"
2. Sears, Osten; "The Homosexual Agenda".
3. Kupelian; "The Marketing of Evil".
4. Rossiter; "The Liberal Mind".
This confirms your position as an anti-intellectual with an ideology to be supported at the cost of logic and truthfulness. Your bumper sticker epithets are not worth commenting on; your hatred of what you choose to see (blindly) as God is obvious. So I wonder why there would be any need to attempt a discussion with you?
This is not intended as a forum for the venting of hatred. It is a forum for logical discussions of the issues of Atheism. Foremost of those issues is the evidence that Atheists have for the non-existence of a First Cause. Disagreement with the moral precepts that are interpreted from the Bible are non sequitur in the pursuit of that issue.
So if all you want to do is to perform a series of spleen venting, then that is not acceptable argumentation. I'm sure you understand, being dedicated to rationality, right?
Actually, I'm confused.
I assumed that you created threads on specific topics so that people could voice their opinions on those specific topics.
There does exist a thread for a disproof of a First Cause, which I have not commented on.
I have commented that the imaginary and the non-existent look very similar, and that it seems impossible to provide evidence of the non-existence of anyone's imaginary friend. If this is not the case, I would be interested in being educated on the matter.
I further assumed that since your blog is dedicated to Atheism, that you would encourage their participation. If only to point out how pathetically flawed our positions are.
I do not see how this thread pertains to a First Cause either as a proof or disproof, and so was only commenting as to the merits of the issue itself.
I admit this particular thread struck me as being purely bigoted and I responded emotionally because of that. Likewise, it is upsetting to be lumped in with Nazis and other mass murderers for espousing a morality of reason and compassion.
There seems to me a distinct difference between that, and quoting the word of God as, well, the word of God.
My rational point is: How do you determine that homosexuality is degenerate? What Bible verses, and how do you know that those verses are intended to be taken literal and not a result of mistranslation or some sort of ancient parable?
My 'bumper-sticker' equivalent might be: "If God hates fags so much, why does he keep making them?"
PS. I left a challenge on your Twain thread weeks ago. You posted it, but never responded. If you'd like a philosophical, rational, unemotional debate .. that seems an ideal topic to me.
Hmm.
So Christianity espouses an immoral moral code?
Uh....that's odd coming from a moral relativist.
Respectfully. There's no absolute truth! And that's absolutely true?
Deep.
Nice try Chris. I must have missed the part where I claimed to be a moral relativist. Thanks for defining my position for me and then laughing at the absurdity of your conclusions. I gather that happens a lot around here.
Everyone understands that without God you can still have a basis for morality ... right?
Because if you don't think so, God, please don't stop believing!!
Surely you don't claim that you have objective morals...?? No, your morals, what ever they are, are self-established even if you adopted them from some other self-established moral source. And being self-established, they are necessarily relativist: relative to your own personal opinions at the time of the establishment of your morals. Perhaps you claim that your morals are obviously universal; some people do claim that, only to be shown cultures and individuals who do not share those so-called universals.
It is just not possible that your moral values are anything else but relativist, they are relative to you and they are subject to change upon your whim. Claiming otherwise is absurd, your constant sarcasm and superiority projections to the contrary.
Maybe it's not as obvious as I had thought. Apologies for the sarcasm (even if I was responding to a similar tone), I had thought my position obvious and the distinctions clear.
As I have laid out, morality is ideally built upon a combination of shared interest, empathy, compassion and reason.
There is no objective morality, in that sentient beings are required for morality to exist. No intentions, no morality.
However there is certainly a objectively best moral action for an individual scenario.
Of course they are relative to me (what a notion .. that they might not be .. sounds absurd!). But I am not a moral relativist in the manner that Chris was implying (one that cannot make moral judgments because morality is determined by culture, and one cannot/should not pass such judgments on another). My defense of Sam Harris' thesis (well being of conscious creatures) and my promoting of Humanism (reason and compassion) over Christianity (faith in JC as the savoir) should have made that abundantly clear.
I know he was basically just baiting me and I should have just ignored his sarcasm. Live and learn.
So... How about them gays?
"As I have laid out, morality is ideally built upon a combination of shared interest, empathy, compassion and reason. "
These idealistic words have so little meaning without defining a program, that it seems little more than simplistic on the one hand, and dangerously deceptive on the other hand. They are all quite lofty sounding, yet their implementation in the past has been forcible, with bloody consequences. For one thing, no one, not Harris nor you nor anyone can define my well being for me; that is the fly that destroys the ointment. If you attempt to dictate my well being, I promise that I will resist.
If you take those words to a biker bar, you'll see what you are up against: human nature. Your reason and compassion which you pit against truly objective morality will not apply to anyone but yourself. Your reason and compassion will have to be forcibly applied to a recalcitrant human nature. Again, I will forcibly resist.
I'm not going to pretend that I have some perfect model of humanity and know the path to achieve it.
I just don't see how presuming that morality is dictated by God helps. We should be interested in human happiness, not the happiness of God. At best, God is perfect and not dependent on us for happiness.
One of the ideals is a shared common interest. Without your participation, how can we reach a shared interest?
I would not presume to determine for you your own well being, and would resist others who would attempt to do so. There is always going to be room for improvement in legal and civil and moral issues. By utilizing reason and reasonable discussion, we can peaceably work towards these ideals.
Frankly, if your goal is empathy and compassion, stealing the property of your people like you seem to be concerned about ... well let's just say you'd be doing it wrong.
A general description of well being would include things along the lines of health, happiness, access to basic necessities of life,and generally expanded from there. These are 'good' things.
Instances of pain, sickness, hunger, etc are examples of 'bad' things.
I know it sounds terribly simple.. but I think that is one of it's merits as well.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say about the bikers...
I hope none of that came across as sarcasm, I meant it all very sincerely.
As I understand it, the logical problem of utilitarian ethical theories is the issue of the individual. Let's say it were possible to achieve a perfect or even elevated "well-being" for a majority of folks. But, in order to achieve this state of affairs, a reciprocal amount of suffering would have to be inflicted on a very small minority, or perhaps even a single person. Would that be moral or just? I would have to say no.
The reality is that the individual has no real value in this system. I could be wrong, but I think it was Kant who soundly refuted Bentham, Mill and his utilitarian descendents.
What about promises? Again, the issue of the individual. If I make a solemn promise to someone, say to care for the widow of my good friend, would it be right to break that promise to achieve more "well-being" for more people? No, it is right to keep my promise regardless of the outcome of a numerically greater good.
Morality must be based on the irreducible value of the individual! Good based theories are not compatible with such a view. And that's why consequentialist scientific "humanism" has been invoked by every brutal regime of the 20th century that has murdered countless people in the name of progress.
But there's an even bigger problem.
A philosophical materialist tells us that values or not objective , they are human generated. We agree to value certain things like compassion, empathy, and reason presumably to ensure the survival of our species. But there's nothing very compassionate or moral about obeying, or not obeying, the dictates of my biologically determined genes. The truth is, nothing really matters in the naturalistic worldview. To take it a step further, why should I care if my species survives? Why should I care about the well-being of anyone at all but me! The truth is that I'll be dead in a box soon enough and then it'll be as if there were no humanity, or existence at all for that matter. When my consciousness ends, reality ends. So what's the fuss?
When the transcendent source of values is denied, anything is permitted.
Sam,
”We should be interested in human happiness, not the happiness of God.”
Being a should statement, that is a moral declaration. And happiness is the fuzziest of Fuzz/Buzz words. I determine my happiness, not some group of idealists. My happiness value changes daily. The characteristics of the things of happiness, those qualities of life that make me happy, change daily. There is no conceivable way for a group of idealists to provide universal human happiness because it is up to the individual to pursue his own happiness. "Happiness" is a feel-good term without actual meaning.
”At best, God is perfect and not dependent on us for happiness.”
You know this… How?
”One of the ideals is a shared common interest. Without your participation, how can we reach a shared interest?”
Exactly! This is Fuzz Word #2: I don’t want to share my stuff, my income, any of my Private Property with you or anyone based on your ideals. My Private Property will be shared as I see fit. In fact we already have shared common interest – the Federal government – which has spent us into the chasm due to its incompetence and “compassion” programs which throw money every which direction except mine.
”By utilizing reason and reasonable discussion, we can peaceably work towards these ideals.”
Reason is Fuzzword #3. There is not one person in ten thousand who does not think that he is more able to reason than the next guy. And there are even fewer who actually know what the reasoning process entails. The problem is that when even a trained logician comes to the issues of morality and “shoulds”, there is no path to truth if a) truth is denied; b) First Principles are denied; c) absolutes are denied. For the modern Atheist philosopher-humanist, all of those are denied.
This means that any and all ethical principles are based solely on the opinion of the person who derives them. This is the reason that every Atheist has his own ethic, his own morality ( or he co-opts the prevailing cultural morality at least temporarily).
The Enlightenment philosophers co-opted certain parts of Christianity, which they redefined to suit their own purposes: Liberte’, Egalite’, Fraternite’ – these Enlightenment Fuzz Word ideals immediately became an excuse to slaughter entire portions of the French population. This of course became a professed standard for Lenin et. al. And in France it resulted in the ultimate rise of Napoleon and the slaughter of the French army.
Fuzz words as ideals are the most fearsome of all attempts to seize my own responsibility from me for my own life.
(Continued from above)
”I don't really understand what you are trying to say about the bikers...”
OK then, perhaps that was poorly stated on my part. If you take your ideals into a biker bar and share with the bikers your intention of placing them into a shared community, for the purpose of their happiness, do you really think you will sign them up to voluntarily pursue your vision for their future? Seriously, that is not going to happen.
”A general description of well being would include things along the lines of health, happiness, access to basic necessities of life,and generally expanded from there. These are 'good' things.
Instances of pain, sickness, hunger, etc are examples of 'bad' things.”
There are billions of tax payer dollars being spent on exactly these things. The war on poverty is over 40 years old. Poverty, it turns out, is a state of mind as much as it is a financial condition. The poor already share my income. The sick already share my income. The programs and laws that share my income are semi-infinite. The poor, chronically poor, are content – happy with their food stamps and Medicaid. The truly needy - I have friends who are disabled and needy - get help. You might argue the quality of these programs, but it is redundant to create new ones, especially based on ideology without specifics.
Here’s a thought. There is a book on the black situation in the USA, written by a black man, Kevin Jackson. The book is “The Big Black Lie”. It documents the human characteristics of the black community from the inside; I highly recommend it.
I’ll finish with this: people cannot be leveraged from one frame of mind into another with talk of compassion, empathy, equality, or whatever. We have over 40 years – two generations – of documentation on actual programs which show that. People who are comfortable in poverty are not going to leave poverty without the tools of individual responsibility and the incentive to use them, and that has never been an objective of humanism, quite the opposite.
Here’s another thought. Read up on August Comte, the pioneer of humanism in its ultimate form.
Chris,
Exactly. Valuing groups over individuals is the thrust of humanism and is the reason it eschews personal responsibility and development.
It is an elitist process of deciding who gets what under which definition of Good, Happiness, Thriving, Flourishing or other lofty, high minded objective which they have for us.
So in that sense it is always reducible to "them" and "us".
Chris,
I don't think you understand at all. The individual does have real value. Harming one person to make others happier is not a path to happiness. There are many thought experiments that make this perfectly obvious. I'm specifically thinking of the example of the doctor who could save five lives by harvesting the organs of one healthy patient.
"Morality must be based on the irreducible value of the individual!"
Well this I will agree with! Look at that, morality without God.
You are attempting to equate humanism with nihilism. The juxtaposition is revealed to be absurd if you replace the idea of humanism with divine command theory.
"Nothing really matters in a theistic universe. God planned everything already. He already knows what's going to happen. When I die, with Jesus as my savior, I will go to Heaven. What matters in this mortal coil?
Yet, with God on my side, who can be against me? Thus anything is permitted."
You are literally saying at the end there that if God isn't real, that nothing matters. That's very sad. I hope you don't really think that.
Stan.
I clearly said that it was up to you to declare what happiness means to you. I specifically said that confiscation and redistribution of property is wrong. (As opposed to fair taxation). I do believe in a hand up, not a hand out. There is no suggestion that individuals abdicate responsibility!
The wealth disparity I have real issue with is the super-rich, who make over 500 times what their workers do, pay next to noting in taxes, actually produce nothing, crash the economy by playing shell games, get bailed out by the consumer and then promptly return to raking in multi-million dollar bonuses.
”At best, God is perfect and not dependent on us for happiness.”
I said 'at best', although I actually struggled over the phrasing of that. I mean if God is perfect, he is not lacking happiness. Since we have no objective means of determining his desires anyways, why conflate the issues with what some people 2000 years dead thought about Him?
Like you said, you are already in a shared community! It's called a country! You are not 'placing' anyone there.
Education and women's/equal rights are clearly the method out of poverty. Access to both are Humanistic ideals.
Lol.
Sam, you're a skillful heathen, guy. This is beginning to feel like square dancing.
Are you saying that "If God is real, then nothing matters?
That's not only sad, it's arrogant.
Oh, I forgot. It's "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven."
There are healthy hierarchies, you know.
I just had a revelation. (pause) Leave it be.
The naturalist has a bottom up interpretation of reality, the supernaturalist a top down read. Oil and water, aye?
”I clearly said that it was up to you to declare what happiness means to you. I specifically said that confiscation and redistribution of property is wrong. (As opposed to fair taxation). I do believe in a hand up, not a hand out. There is no suggestion that individuals abdicate responsibility!”
Then I suggest that you are not talking about Humanism, you are talking about something else which you are calling Humanism. Taxation, btw, is confiscation for the common good. "Fair" taxation is Fuzz-speak for unequal taxing as a confiscation program to satisfy ideologies of redistribution.
”The wealth disparity I have real issue with is the super-rich, who make over 500 times what their workers do, pay next to noting in taxes, actually produce nothing, crash the economy by playing shell games, get bailed out by the consumer and then promptly return to raking in multi-million dollar bonuses.”
And thereby you make personal judgments on other people’s property out of your concern for “fairness”. That is exactly the attitude of Humanism that I don’t want judging my propertys fairness. And that is why I will fight it to my last breath. No social constructor/constrictor has any right to even know the value of my property, much less declare it unfair to the have-nots.
”I said 'at best', although I actually struggled over the phrasing of that. I mean if God is perfect, he is not lacking happiness. Since we have no objective means of determining his desires anyways, why conflate the issues with what some people 2000 years dead thought about Him?”
It is not rationally possible to attribute omni-anything to the deity, certainly not omni-happiness. But your actual point is that you abhor the Bible and absolutes in general and don’t want it in your way because you have your own universal morals to instill and install on the human population. And you need for me to cooperate because you envision one big happy cooperative. But I will fight against the cooperativization of myself, my family, and the nation. Cooperatives are bloody fails, Sam, why do you deny that? You seem to be possessed with the rose colored glasses syndrome, completely in denial concerning actual human nature.
”Education and women's/equal rights are clearly the method out of poverty. Access to both are Humanistic ideals.”
Wow, now you have really stepped in it. Education has declined to the super low level it now occupies BECAUSE of the Humanist John Dewey’s influence on the Humanists in the government run Department of Education. The Humanist reduction of all individuals to the common denominator of the lowest performer, coupled with testing to make sure that happens has produced entire populations of illiterates. Not merely unread, but unable to read. The common denominator approach has done things like eliminate reading circles that are selected for their ability levels such as advanced readers, nominal readers, and poor readers. Why? Because it is unfair to the poor readers for them to be separated. Focus on "teach to test" has destroyed teach the process and "teach the meaning". I can go on for hours on the destruction of American education by the heady Humanist fuzzy values.
Women’s Rights means two things. First no rights for human preborns, be the pre-women or pre-men. Second, advantages for women which are discriminatory against men. This is the old story about eliminating entry exams for firemen, cops, college entry, etc. because the exams can’t be passed by blacks, therefore blacks are discriminated against. And then the unqualified blacks take jobs, college entry etc at the expense of Asians (for example) who are better qualified and actually worked to better themselves for these opportunities, now denied.
Equal Rights, other than equal opportunities to be considered for access to better situations, is discrimination to favor the inopportune. It savages the entire idea of personal responsibility for personal betterment.
(continued)
(contiued from above)
”I clearly said that it was up to you to declare what happiness means to you. I specifically said that confiscation and redistribution of property is wrong. (As opposed to fair taxation). I do believe in a hand up, not a hand out. There is no suggestion that individuals abdicate responsibility!”
Then I suggest that you are not talking about Humanism of the Manifesto variety, you are talking about something else which you are calling Humanism. Taxation, btw, is confiscation for the common good.
”The wealth disparity I have real issue with is the super-rich, who make over 500 times what their workers do, pay next to noting in taxes, actually produce nothing, crash the economy by playing shell games, get bailed out by the consumer and then promptly return to raking in multi-million dollar bonuses.”
And thereby you make personal judgments on other people’s property out of your concern for “fairness”. That is exactly the attitude of Humanism that I don’t want judging my property’s fairness. I don't like the government's actions in these bailouts either, but look, it is the exact feeling of entitlement to distribute the people's money any way they want which is the problem. In other words, functional progressivism is the same as Humanism in its arrogation of power to itself; and it invites corruption, in fact demands it.
”I said 'at best', although I actually struggled over the phrasing of that. I mean if God is perfect, he is not lacking happiness. Since we have no objective means of determining his desires anyways, why conflate the issues with what some people 2000 years dead thought about Him?”
It is not rationally possible to attribute omni-anything to the deity, certainly not omni-happiness. But your actual point is that You abhor the Bible and absolutes in general, and don’t want it in your way because you have your own universal morals to instill and install on the human population. And you need for me to cooperate because you envision one big happy cooperative. But I will fight against the cooperativization of myself, my family, and the nation. Cooperatives are bloody fails, Sam, why do you deny that? You seem to be possessed with the rose colored glasses syndrome, completely in denial concerning actual human nature. You are supporting something which has been shown to devolve into absolutes, corrupt absolutes, while arguing that you are incensed by absolutes.
”Education and women's/equal rights are clearly the method out of poverty. Access to both are Humanistic ideals.”
Wow, now you have really stepped in it. Education has declined to the super low level it now occupies BECAUSE of the Humanist John Dewey’s influence on the Humanists in the government run Department of Education. The Humanist reduction of all individuals to the common denominator of the lowest performer, coupled with testing to make sure that happens has produced entire populations of illiterates. Not merely unread, but unable to read. The common denominator approach has done things like eliminate reading circles that are selected for their ability levels such as advanced readers, nominal readers, and poor readers. Focus on teach to test has destroyed teach the process and teach the meaning. It is common now to hear "educators" deslare that parental rights end at the schoolhouse door. The latest news is that school counsellors have taken girls for abortions (birth control) without the parents even knowing of the pregnancy. I can go on for hours on the destruction of American education by the heady Humanist fuzzy values.
(continued below)
Women’s Rights means two things. First, no rights for human preborns, be they pre-women or pre-men, pre-gay or pre-Humanists. Second, advantages for women which are discriminatory against men. This is the old story about eliminating entry exams for firemen, cops, college entry, municiple jobs etc. because the exams can’t be passed by blacks, therefore blacks are discriminated against. And then the unqualified blacks take the jobs, the college entry etc. at the expense of Asians (for example) who are better qualified and actually worked to better themselves for these opportunities, which are now denied to them.
Equal Rights, other than equal opportunities to be considered for access to better situations, is discrimination to favor the inopportune. It savages the entire idea of personal responsibility for personal betterment. You did say equal access but you did clarify access to what? opportunities? or seizing the job?
Now perhaps you have different definitions of these FUZZ words. That merely means that you are a Sam-Humanist, not a political-religious Humanist as defined by the Manifestos (which I still presume that you have yet read).
Yes we are in a shared community, one where the humanist ideal has destroyed education and where blacks are kept on the Democrat plantation.
You are idealistic and don’t want those results, I am sure. But those are the fruits of humanism, and I will fight further destruction from humanists bearing Fuzz words.
I have to comment on your reply to Chris (Sorry Chris);
”"Morality must be based on the irreducible value of the individual!"
Well this I will agree with! Look at that, morality without God.”
You have no basis for declaring this. There is no irreducible value of humans under the Leftist use of evolution as a guiding principle: humans are accidents the same as e coli. That is the fundamental basis of Peter Singer’s entire philosophy (I’m pretty sure Singer is a humanist). Valuing - calculating the values - of humans and groups of humans is fundamental to Humanism, and again I suspect that you don’t know what Humanism really says. Under the scientistic, materialist Atheist viewpoint, there is no absolute basis for valuing anything. So your statement presupposes an absolute valuation system: what is it?
Sam, your version of Humanism seems totally foreign to the common Manifesto version, at least when you deny equalization and confiscation. What you haven’t done here is to declare your methods for achieving your objectives. What is your plan? How did you develop your version of Humanism if it is not th common Manifesto Humanism? Most importantly what is your declaration of “fair”? If it is evil of God to allow some babies to die at birth, how will you make all births “fair”, under your rules of fairness?
Write us your complete Manifesto, with methods. Maybe we don’t know what you are talking about.
Aye Chris. Oil and water. Seems an impossible chasm to bridge. I wish I knew the method.
I could clarify, but I'll leave it be as you ask.
Stan, I simply cannot respond to a massive posting like that. There are too many topics and I cannot do any of them justice if I attempt to address them all.
Some of what you say, I completely agree with. If you would care to break it down into more manageable elements, I would be more than happy to discuss.
I googled this for you. I hope it at least begins to clear up your many misconceptions.
TEN HUMANIST COMMANDMENTS
TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR A GLOBAL HUMANISM
(Dr. Rodrigue TREMBLAY)
1- Proclaim the natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings.
2- Respect the life and property of others.
3- Practice tolerance and open-mindedness towards the choices and life styles of others.
4- Share with those who are less fortunate and mutually assist those who are in need of help.
5- Use neither lies, nor spiritual doctrine, nor temporal power to dominate and exploit others.
6- Rely on reason, logic and science to understand the Universe and to solve life's problems.
7- Conserve and improve the Earth's natural environment—land, soil, water, air and space—as humankind's common heritage.
8- Resolve differences and conflicts cooperatively without resorting to violence or to wars.
9- Organize public affairs according to individual freedom and responsibility, through political and economic democracy.
10- Develop one's intelligence and talents through education and effort.
http://www.moralitywithoutreligion.com/commandments.htm
That has to be one of the most annoying things I've ever seen: Commandments! From a resource sharer!
Allow me to just say this: BULLSHIT.
OK, I've calmed down some. Here we go: I've about had enough of your constant insults and denigrations, not to mention your refusal to even consider more reasonable interpretations of the Bible. You obviously have no intention of doing anything but throwing out a steady stream of self-aggrandizing, self-righteous indignation over something you have built up as a strawman / strawgod. You are persistent in denigrating your strawgod as if it were a real thing, rather than your own personal construct. The fact that you refuse to consider any other interpretation says that you are merely interested in seeing your name in the comments. At this moment I see no reason to allow you to continue with this sort of uncalled-for niggling annoyance, when your only apparent intent is to call names and bluster about things you don't comprehend.
And really. COMMANDMENTS? Are you completely out of touch with reality? (well, it is obvious that you are). You certainly seem to have no clue as to anyone else's thought process than your own.
Tell me why I should not lock you off this blog.
Annoying.. Yeah really. Who the hell uses commandments. What a stupid idea.
You asked for clarification on the things I thought important, and I provided them.
I've been constantly been compared to a Nazi, told I have no foundation for morality, and otherwise derided since I started posting here. Whatever. Block me for a couple snide remarks.
I'm out of touch with reality. Says the man who closes his eyes and talks to Jesus.
I can't comprehend anothers thought process, says the guy who made this thread decrying the horror of a gay priest.
Y'know what. Forget it. Chris is right. Oil and water.
And your interpretation of the First Principles is still horribly, fatally flawed. You built your whole foundation on sand, one day the tide is going to rush out and all that cognitive dissonance in your head is going crumble around you and you'll figure it out. Or more likely, not.
Adios Sam.
Folks,
Sam has been removed from this blog. His only intention has been to spew moral indignation and self-righteous proclamations of his own moral supremacy. He has taken no interest in any differing viewpoints other than his own, yet he preaches tolerance and on and on as if he were the first to think of it.
After a sufficient quantity of insults and intolerant behavior, he has been banned.
Ahhh, dang it! I just responded to Sam on the other thread, too!
I'm sure another near carbon copy will pop up soon.
Why is it so many self proclaimed champions of Reason have so little understanding of it?
"Why is it so many self proclaimed champions of Reason have so little understanding of it?"
Because they worship something higher than themselves?
Rationality seems godlike to them, because they are so far below it.
"Rationality seems godlike to them, because they are so far below it."
That's the best explanation I've heard :)
Post a Comment