Saturday, May 16, 2009

Dr. Robert Reymond on Secular Humanism

Interesting piece of argumentation from Dr. Reymond demolishing the irrationality of the Secular Humanists:

The problem that all secular humanism must face, however, is this: Can an empirical, purely descriptive philosophy, a philosophy that repudiates theology and concerns itself only with a description of what is in human experience, provide a ground for the oughts of universal moral prescriptions, indeed, for any moral prescriptions whatsoever? A negative response is obviously the only response: One can never derive "oughtness" from "is-ness". No doubt many humanists disapprove of the brutality and murder perpetrated by Soviet Communism, urging that the world should "make love, not war", but Joseph Stalin showed a personal preference for murder when he thought it appropriate and contributory to the propagation of worldwide communism, as did Chairman Mao. And many moderns have a personal preference for adultery over monogamy and for theft over labor. Thus murder, adultery, and theft, as much as friendship, fidelity, and honest labor and private property, have on empirical, descriptive grounds a claim as values because they have been discovered as values in human experience. How then can a theory of ethics that restricts itself to descriptive facts provide a ground for normative prescriptions? ...

Probably most humanists today attempt to avoid this problem by speaking of moral obligation as a social demand. Instead of looking to theology for the imposition of moral sanctions, they look to society for the imposition of such. Apart from the fact that this appeal does not really avoid the problem of ground (where is the argument to establish an individual's obligation to any society?), it must address this question: If morality is a demand of society, which society? Is it the demand of the family, the church, the nation, or all humanity? ... But then morality becomes loyal to the State, and we are right back where we begin — with murder, adultery, and theft becoming moral obligations when Nazism, Fascism, and Communism demand them.

On purely empirical grounds how can society obligate any man to sacrifice his personal preference and ease for the improvement of others? If there is no God and men are simply products of an impersonal beginning plus time plus chance, why should not every man say as the student said to Francis Schaeffer, "I want to destroy." If there is no God why should not every man step out of the line and join the student in his bent to destroy or, at least, in his "dropping out" of society. And if humanism can do no better than to call such people social sponges, social misfits, and other derogatory names, it has abandoned rational argument and can provide no ground for moral education.

... In an empirical philosophy, one may find the verb is, but the verb ought has no logical standing.

— Robert Reymond, Faith's Reasons for Believing (Ross-shire, Scotland, UK: Mentor, 2008), pp. 413-414. Bold supplied.

Secular Humanism, and in fact all forms of empiricism, will always fail to provide a coherent meta-ethical theory, and the epistemic ground for the existence of their ethical declarations. All of them commit David Hume's "is-ought" fallacy, as there is simply no way an "ought" or ethical imperative can be derived from an "is" or ethical norm or description. This is why the postmoderns have rightly discerned that the entirety of Modernism, of which Secular Humanism is a major actor, has feet of clay, and that such humanist ethical pronouncements are, in [Michel] Foucault's view, a form of power play. After all, if there is no ground or basis for one's ethical pronouncements, then all the utopian pontifications of the secular humanists are just merely opinions just as subjective as all other views, and no more authoritative than the views of any other person. To say that the humanist view is correct therefore is a form of epistemic subjugation of the majority who are non-Secular humanists to the Secular humanist "bourgeois", though I must add Foucault is not necessarily adverse to the latter.

Secular Humanism and all forms of empiricism are meta-ethically and epistemologically bankrupt, being unable to provide a coherent and logical framework to understand the world. [Other more sophisticated philosophers have continued coming up with more and more complex theories, but besides throwing Occam's Razor, we would not be going there since it is too academic anyway, plus I would then need to do much reading for little effect] Post-modernism understands this failure and therefore denies that such framework exists at all (the denial of the metanarrative). Of course, this does not solve the problem, but I digress.

The Secular humanists and New atheists should focus on Post-modernism, as post-modernism has destroyed their entire epistemic foundations, or at the very least gives the impression of destrying it. People like Dawkins et al can rant how much they want, but in the overall scheme of things, they are on the losing side. The winners are the post-moderns and neo-pagans (ie Cosmic humanists) who will take over the culture (barring reformation and revival), and these are the ones who we Christians need to face in the future. To put it bluntly, Secular humanism is so passè, and while there is certainly need to refute their false belief systems, their numbers are generally on the decline. Writing more "God Delusion" books is not going to help increase their numbers by much.

66 comments:

Larro said...

Aha! This ones a little more up my alley.

1 week ago

Larro said...

A heads up. Stalin and Mao while declaring an official "atheistic" state did not forward the philosophy of secular humanism as pertained to the state (as far as I know). Besides, where does it get anybody equating secular humanism broadly with guys who were megalomaniacs, dictators and murderers? It's stereotypical in my opinion and obscenely pathetic. Hitler was a devout Catholic; so are Catholics similarly atrocious?

"And many moderns have a personal preference for adultery over monogamy and for theft over labor."

What!? First, what the hell are "moderns"? Secondly, every single atheist/secular humanist I know are not adulterers or thieves (including myself); another very bad stereotype if by "moderns" is meant "secular humanist". Additionally, if we are talking about modern humanity, we can not know the statistics of what proportion of society were committing adultery and thievery ACE to the present; it's impossible because those types of records are far and few between and in all likelihood lost to history.

"Thus murder, adultery, and theft, as much as friendship, fidelity, and honest labor and private property, have on empirical, descriptive grounds a claim as values because they have been discovered as values in human experience."

Having empirical value does not necessitate application of these observed human qualities.

"If morality is a demand of society, which society? Is it the demand of the family, the church, the nation, or all humanity?"

Hello! Secular Humanism.

Larro said...

The problem I am finding with this piece is the assumption that all secular humanists want EVERYBODY to be secular humanists. Personally, I really don't care what anybody does with their private life so long as it does not cause harm to another. I don't need religion to know that. Secular humanists don't want to take away peoples religious belief or their faith. I mean, what are people afraid of as concerns atheists and secular humanists? Sure, I believe it'd be a nice thing to see atheism grow but without the diversity of the society that we live in it would be kind of boring.

This piece also seems to claim that religion has a monopoly on morality. As if organized religion has a pertinent role above the state. That's theocracy my friend and absolutely no better than the above mentioned totalitarian systems of governance.

I'm proud to be an American no matter what some may claim it to be: a "Christian Nation". However ephemeral the "separation clause" may be it remains a very potent argument in the United States. We cherish our liberty and the freedom to practice our religion (or non-religion) as we see fit without state intervention. The sad thing is that many people of faith don't get it.

1 week ago

Larro said...

Additionally, this piece is moot and void when claiming NAZI Germany as being secular humanist/atheistic because it was not. There is no "demolishing" of anything but his own argument in this.

As a prime example: how does one explain the "Christmas Truce" during World War II?

1 week ago

Larro said...

LOL, I read your analysis of Pascal's Wager on your other site. Hilarious because you did not put forth a conclusive "alternative" at all. Tsk, tsk. I was actually expecting something concrete and "mind blowing". Sorry to inform you that there was nothing there that was "new" in regard to Pascal's Wager. Personally, I think the believer has an horrific fear of non-existence after death. The after life is something I am not concerned about in the least.

1 week ago

Munchy said...

"As a prime example: how does one explain the "Christmas Truce" during World War II? "

Christmas Truce was WW I !!!! NOT WWII !!!

1 week ago

Munchy said...

The fact that the church in Germany endorsed Hitler is in no way indicative that Hitler was Christian, but rather a damning indictment on the german church. Unfortunately, this has not and will not continue to be the only time where the church (in the earthly sense) has failed in its role and is a shame on church history. Yet God's name was still glorified in this midst of this tragedy through people such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and others

Anyway, the Christmas truce was a story I read when young, and I loved the movie too! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424205/
You should watch it too Larro, and get your facts right as well. There is no mistaking it is WWI not WWII

1 week ago

Beast_FCD said...

"But then morality becomes loyal to the State, and we are right back where we begin — with murder, adultery, and theft becoming moral obligations when Nazism, Fascism, and Communism demand them."

Daniel is confusing nationalism with secular humanism, which obviously is a non-sequitor argument.

Beast FCD

1 week ago

Beast_FCD said...

Actually, both Mao and Stalin did not declare an officially "atheistic" state. Both of the leaders did not at any time see the destruction of religion as their primary agenda. This is a lie by religious folks who have a vehemence against communism.

Beast FCD

1 week ago

PuritanReformed said...

Correction! Hitler called himself a devout Catholic. Does the term propoganda mean anything?

> "And many moderns have a personal preference for adultery over monogamy and for theft over labor."
What!? First, what the hell are "moderns"? ...

You misrepresent the argument. Dr. Reymond is saying that: 'There are a significant number of modern people today who have a "personal preference for adultery over monogamy and for theft over labor" '. Now, I am sure THAT does not need to be proven?

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

You are confusing religion qua truth versus religion qua institution. Christianity especially claims to have a monopoly on truth; whether you agree with it or not does not change the fact that this is what Christianity teaches. So Christianity qua religion qua truth claims a monopoly on morality AND truth AND life itself.

Christianity qua institution however does not claim any monopoly! In fact, Christianity because of its necessity of Man execercising geniune faith does not claim to impose our standards on others except through persuasion (which is Christianty qua truth). So there is no totalitarianism involved since we do not force anyone to conform to our religion. Now, social morality of course is another issue, but there is an area which is common to all Man.

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

>We cherish our liberty and the freedom to practice our religion (or non-religion) as we see fit without state intervention. The sad thing is that many people of faith don't get it.

I would believe you if American liberals have not constantly demonstrate a lack of charity towards Christians, and the ramming of the homosexual agenda down the throats of all. How can there be freedom to practice religion if practicing it would result in lawsuits and persecution under "hate crimes" laws?

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Nazi Germany was not humanistic? That is news indeed! I am sure the Social Darwinists, the Eugenists, the Occultists in the Nazi party were just there "coincidentally". I didn't remember Neitsche and Heidegger were in any shape or form Christians, not to mention the very humanistic teaching of the so-called "Higher-criticism" method prevalent in the German seminaries, or the Humanistic Liberal theology of Freidrich Schleiermacher and his opponent Neo-Orthodox founder Karl Barth.

This I can concede: Not all Nazi Germany is secular humanist. Most are religious humanist, which is epistemologically no different from secular humanists anyway, with both imbibing on the atheistic philosophies of the day (e.g. Immanuel Kant's Transcedentalism Idealism).

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Larro,

I was not using the Wager to "prove God". I was using it to say that the issue of whether Christianity is true is important so all unbelievers need to investigate whether it is true, because they will face the consequences if it is true.

Your faith in humanism will let you down in the end. Humanism has no valid reason to mandate anything, let along justify its very existance as a coherent system of belief. This is what Dr. Reymond has shown, which I have further elucidate. You are gambling with your life on a stack of cards, and you should beware since if you are wrong, there would be severe consequences whether you are concerned about it or not.

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

And of course, this is misreading the argument! I am not confusing nationalism with secular humanism. Reymond's original argument was that morality is rooted either in the family, the church, nations or humanity. The first two options are out for secular humanists, while Reymond states that it is impossible to get a uniform view of what is right or wrong for all of humanity and thus he talks about the state.

The situation he did not deal with is a bunch of self-proclaimed humanists operating across national boundaries who claim to speak for all of humanity (I wonder who appointed them) and pontificate on what constitutes rightness and wrongness. Thus, they create a sort of quasi-nation state just like the UN. When such occurs, this quasi-nation state is no different from a nation in terms of ethical irrationalism and incoherence. Reymond's statement can be modified for your case as follows:

"But then morality becomes loyal to the [quasi-nation state of] Secular Humanists, and we are right back where we begin — with murder, adultery, and theft becoming moral obligations when Secular Humanism demands them."

PuritanReformed said...

Oh, and just FYI, in Secular Humanism:

Murder - Abortion,
Adultery - Any reason divorce and remarriage,
Theft - Socialism, especially seen in purposed inflation through printing of money

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

Translation: You want freedom to practice bigotry.

Beast FCD

Beast_FCD said...

This is complete nonsense, and you, Daniel Chew Huicong, know it.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Oh? I am sure there are secular humanists who promote abortion, divorce on any grounds, and inflation through purposeful devaluation of the currency. According to the Christian ethical system, these three correspond to murder, adultery and theft respectively.

Case closed!

6 days ago

Larro said...

"Now, I am sure THAT does not need to be proven? "

On the contrary. I say it does!

6 days ago

Larro said...

What do you know of American liberals? Do you know any personally?

Hate crimes? Let's call a spade a spade.

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

Case closed? Hardly.

According to the Christian ethical system, killing is alright if sanctioned by God; abortion isn't murder, unless you consider fertilized embryos "babies", which is absurdity at its finest.

Inflation and deflation is a market force defined by supply and demand, not secular humanism.

Divorce is a right granted even by God to Moses himself. Please read your own bible.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the Lord. Do not bring sin upon the land the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance" (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

I find it very revealing that the two liberals here are NOT at all trying to defend their ethical system in any way. Beast has thrown out the "bigot" charge already. Of course, how to define "bigotry" is not on the table. Ditto for that nefarious phrase "hate crimes", of which the definition would likely degenerate into: "actions which constitute hate as how I (or the Secular Humanists) define it".

Do keep in mind Secular Humanists make up a small proportion of the human population.

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

You're kidding, right? You just need to find any modernist who engages in "open marriages" to find the former, while the American banks are full of the latter (the CEOs that is). Of course, we could add in all the political think-tanks and the corrupt bureaucracies of the UN and the EU, but I think you should have gotten the point by now.

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

>unless you consider fertilized embryos "babies", which is absurdity at its finest

Prove it!

>Inflation and deflation is a market force defined by supply and demand, not secular humanism

You have heard of banana notes, I presumme. That is the extreme form of inflation, but all fiat currency economies today partake of this state sanctioned theft, especially to starve off bankruptcy of the economy they print new dollar bills out ot nothing like what the US is doing now. Barring other external factors, flooding the market with more currency will devalue the worth of the currency currently being held by the people.

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

> Divorce is a right granted even by God to Moses himself. Please read your own bible

You forget Mt. 19:3-9.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery (Mt. 19:3-9)

6 days ago

Larro said...

>Christmas Truce was WW I !!!! NOT WWII !!!

Oops, my mistake. :P

Larro said...

"Murder - Abortion,
Adultery - Any reason divorce and remarriage,
Theft - Socialism, especially seen in purposed inflation through printing of money"

Please, my friend, find a dictionary as soon as you possibly can!

Your definition of these words is narrow and in no way redefines them. Ugh!

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

You are a biologist; go use your microscope. I don't have to teach you how to get an fertilized embryo sample, do I???

"You have heard of banana notes, I presumme. That is the extreme form of inflation, but all fiat currency economies today partake of this state sanctioned theft, especially to starve off bankruptcy of the economy they print new dollar bills out ot nothing like what the US is doing now."

Sure, banana notes, that's the time when the Japs printed real notes with bananas on them.

Inflation happens because countries adjust the value of their currencies to meet with trade demands and hedge the prices against other commodities, such as Gold. If a currency value is too high, it will affect import and export.

You are a biologist, not an economist. Stick to your day job and get that embryo sample.

Beast FCD

Beast_FCD said...

"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery"

So divorces are not totally disengaged after all. I win.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

> Your definition of these words is narrow and in no way redefines them. Ugh!

I am not giving the dictionary definition. I am giving a relevant example of each that is embraced by many people nowadays.

Beast_FCD said...

You are just giving your own silly definition of things that only exist in your head.

Secular humanism has nothing to do with killing people. It is designed for the people and for the general good of society.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

>Secular humanism has nothing to do with killing people. It is designed for the people and for the general good of society.


That is YOUR assertion. Now why don't you go back to the aim of the post and defend your Secular Humanism with regards to its ethical, meta-ethical and epistemological flaws?

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

"That is YOUR assertion. Now why don't you go back to the aim of the post and defend your Secular Humanism with regards to its ethical, meta-ethical and epistemological flaws? "

Been there, done that.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

You use terms like "epistermological", "meta-ethical" but you really do not understand what they mean.

& I have already explained the "epistermological" and "meta-ethical" aspects of secular humanism on my blog, as well as the rebuttals, which you have consistently refused to rebut.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Blah... you explained nothing. Your "rebuttals" have nothing to do with epistemology anyway. Tons of peitio principii does not an argument made.

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

That shows how little you understand about big words you use.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

"I am not giving the dictionary definition. I am giving a relevant example of each that is embraced by many people nowadays. "

You always accuse me of giving my own assertions. And now you are guilty of manipulating words.......to your own advantage.

Nice try, mate.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

Stop giving me latin. I don't study latin.

Beast FCD

6 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Translation: Blah, blah, blah. I don't know what those big words mean, but I know you do not know them when you use them.

Now, can you start interacting with the argument proper? I mean, extolling the supposed superiority of Secular Humanism is the sure way to fail the test of epistemic consistency. Just to let you know, I have taken a few philosphy modules before and scored well in them, so I DO know when somebody is blowing smoke. One of the modules is Moral Philosophy which deals with the issue of meta-ethics. So stop sulking and start thinking!

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

Now YOU STOP SULKING AND START THINKING.

You are the one who is blowing smoke with all those stupid latin words, not me. Besides, I have explained very well the position of secular humanism: A human-centred world view based on humanity. There is nothing intrinsically difficult about secular humanism that I need to take a stupid degree course in some obscure church college to understand.

Beast FCD

Beast_FCD said...

& you claimed that the bible does not support divorce, when it is clear that, even the bible verse you quote, that divorce is a biblical option under certain circumstances.

Clearly, you are the typical Singaporean: Typical bookworms who can memorize but can't understand what you are reading.

I rest my case.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Given that Latin was and still is the lingua fraca (oops, was that another Latin term? Or Italian?) of the scholarly world, it is an asset to acquire some knowledge of Latin. And given that philosophy uses Latin, French and even German terms, knowing these terms is evidence that a person has at least read the stuff. Conversely, calling them "stupid Latin words" is de facto evidence that the person has not even read up on the subject, and thus has no clue as to what he is talking about.

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

So now empty and vacuous ad-hominems (another Latin term) are employed...

Oh, btw, stop whining about Latin terms. There is this thing called "Google" which can help you know what they mean and more.

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

"Writing more "God Delusion" books is not going to help increase their numbers by much."

Interestingly, I managed to dissuade a friend from converting into Christianity by lending her the "God Delusion" book. She says the book was impeccably written, which I definitely agree.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

Mate, just stick to English. You aren't that good with it in the first place. If your head isn't big enough, don't wear a big hat.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

You want to use Latin, I will use cantonese. I am sure we can talk past each other......brilliantly.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Unfortunately, I do understand a bit of Cantonese, plus written Cantonese is just Chinese characters, thanks to Emperor Qin.

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

> Interestingly, I managed to dissuade a friend from converting into Christianity by lending her the "God Delusion" book. She says the book was impeccably written, which I definitely agree


It is "impeccable" for committed humanists. When I have the time, I will demolish it in a book review. Even atheist philospher Michael Ruse is ashamed of it. That you agree that it is impeccably written show your ignorance of even basic philosophy, which you have demonstrated over and over again in all our interactions so far.

Question to see if you are really reading: What is the name of the philosopher who has demonstrated the error of empirical devised ethics?

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

Well, I am not only good with cantonese, I am also good with cursing in cantonese. Let's see who wins, shall we?

Beast FCD

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

"It is "impeccable" for committed humanists. When I have the time, I will demolish it in a book review. Even atheist philospher Michael Ruse is ashamed of it,. That you agree that it is impeccably written show your ignorance of even basic philosophy, which you have demonstrated over and over again in all our interactions so far."

Sure, write a book review all you want. You lack the basic understanding of even your own bible, and now you are trying to critique Dawkins. Good job, mate.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

Try translating this in cantonese:

"Throw your mother's old shoes."

Beast FCD

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

> Well, I am not only good with cantonese, I am also good with cursing in cantonese. Let's see who wins, shall we?

If you want to sully your reputation in public, that is your prerogative. I don't do vulgarities, having repented of doing so in my youth.

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

"If you want to sully your reputation in public, that is your perogative. I don't do vulgarities, having repented of doing so in my youth."

You have already sullied your own reputation. You are a butt of most jokes circulating even in your own christian online community.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

I don't recognize Antithesis and gang as Christians, so beat it. Most of his commenters are annonymous. Who knows how many of them are comments posted by him or his few friends just to make himself appear popular?

Beast_FCD said...

Dude. You can always check their IP addresses.

Ignoring critiques doesn't mean that they don't exist, and I have seen some of their comments, and yes, I generally agree with them. Your beliefs do not represent the majority of Christians, perhaps an abject minority (Like my old church, Harvester Baptist Church).

Beast_FCD

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

I do have my detractors, but unlike you I do not denounce them readily. Check out with Munchy and he will tell you that we have a cordial conversation going on via email.

I don't hate Christians; at least not all of them.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

You also sully your own reputation by being rude to them. You do not engage them, merely speaking in circles, throwing words you yourself do not understand, and demonstrate complete and utter ignorance with regards to your own bible.

I have debated with Christians, on and off line, and it is obvious to me you have very poor reading/comprehension skills.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

If this is your attitude towards non christians I can assure you that you will not convert any newbies to your cause.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

Firstly, I do not own AT's site, so I have no way of checking their IP addresses.
Secondly, I do not ignore critiques. But the critiques that I hear from such groups are ad-hominem ones which are rants rather than anything substantial.
Thirdly, I follow Scripture rather than the Zeitgeist in my attitude towards heretics.
Fourthly, I don't engage people who refuse to engage the issues. And stop trying to act as if you know more about the Bible than a Christian. It is pathetic considering I can muster the witness of Christians throughout the ages for most of my positions; for adherence to the one true apoostolic and unversal faith. The ignoramus is you. Get over it.
Fifthly, I do not convert people. It is the Spirit of God who converts people, and it is to those whom the Spirit regenerates that the message of the Gospel would resonate. Those who are false believers will be hardened in their hearts, just as they have been forordained for them to do so. The reprobate will hear the Truth and it would be a frgrance of death unto death for them.

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

I am referring to your watch tower website.

You actually do not answer your critiques. For example, when you claim that people who support gay marriages should be persecuted, I asked you rather politely what kind of punishment should be meted out. You refuse to address me till this very day. Bad PR.

Heretics? Boy, oh boy, most Christians wouldn't even bother to use this term these days. Calling non believers heretics and infidels makes you no different than those taliban folks in Afghanistan. Bad PR again.

I don't know the bible a whole lot, but I do know the bible more than most Christians.

There has never been "one true apostolic and universal faith". Check out the vast denominations of Christian sects.

Sure, you do not convert people. Then why bother writing? Makes no sense, at least to me.

Beast FCD

5 days ago

Larro said...

mur⋅der
  [mur-der]
–noun
1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2. Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3. a group or flock of crows.

a⋅dul⋅ter⋅y
  [uh-duhl-tuh-ree]
–noun, plural -ter⋅ies.
voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse.

theft
  [theft]
–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.

"I am not giving the dictionary definition."

Point taken (about you not using the dictionary definition). However do you not think that by not doing so you are critically breaking down the communicable value of these words? Sullying them of pertinent relevance?

Murder is something as defined by the state NOT religion. How would you feel about living in a society that considered ants sacred and to take an ant's life is profane as defined by the state in accordance with a religious tradition not your own? And you could suffer capital punishment for it?

And adultery? I don't subscribe to such a rigid definition as yours. When people have the freedom to make their own decisions in a society such as the United States as opposed to a country that has "arranged" marriages; which one can't argue are mostly marriages made culturally on religious grounds (though I think marriage is a sham; but that's a whole other nut to crack and outside the bounds of this post). Don't get me wrong I've been in a monogamous relationship for thirteen years and six of those years legally married. We both don't consider marriage as relevant in consideration of the religious aspect. We don't need to be "seen in the eyes of God" to know that we love one another and will be together until our dying days. However, this is my second marriage; my first was a complete botch (lasting less than a year) and I am glad I had the freedom to divorce (otherwise I would not have met my second wife!)

So how would you handle people ALREADY divorced if it were up to you, huh? Would their current marriages be null and void? If they were remarried after divorcing another? If so you can go pleasure yourself elsewhere if you think my current relationship is null and void!

Theft? Your definition is too broad. And you give examples of inflation by printing money. While flooding the economic system with an overabundance of currency devalues said currency can be construed as a flawed method in handling economic forces one can not say that it is theft. You can't charge a whole nation of thievery and hold every single citizen accountable (as here in the States under a democratically elected government) in a court of law!!!

And "I am giving a relevant example of each that is embraced by many people nowadays." That's very populist of you thanks :)

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

I do not own CRN either. I am just a contributor if you haven't realize that yet, plus CRN does not enable comments. And I am not responsible for anything my fellow contributors say, and may disagree with them sometimes even.

> For example, when you claim that people who support gay marriages should be persecuted, I asked you rather politely what kind of punishment should be meted out

I suggest punishments, not persecution. There is no fixed punishment of course. Go and ask a judge what is the punishment for abetting a crime and you will get some idea.

5 days ago

PuritanReformed said...

> I don't know the bible a whole lot, but I do know the bible more than most Christians.

Maybe, but I am not "most Christians". In case you have not realized yet, I have one Christian book published.

> Check out the vast denominations of Christian sects

Firstly, there is near unaminity wrt the Gospel among Evangelicals. Secondly, secular humanists are not unaminous either in their beliefs.

> Sure, you do not convert people. Then why bother writing? Makes no sense, at least to me.

So since you write, are you trying to convert people to secular humanism?

5 days ago

Beast_FCD said...

1. Yes, yes, one Christian book published.............why don't you publish a scientific paper instead?

2. Yup, you are right. Not every secular humanist share the same ideals. Sam Harris, for example, supports selective torture, while I disagree with it wholesale. But I haven't made allegations that there is one one "true universal secular humanism".

3. Punishment with no justification is persecution. Any judge worth his salt will not punish any one who supports gay rights. This is, after all, a supposedly secular country. So the ball is in your court.........again.

4. Near unanimity amongst Evangelicals? Well.............it depends on how you define "near". But I will leave it at that, since I am not involved in your squabbles with evangelicals.

5. I write because I love to write and in the process interact with people. Converting people is not one of my agendas; I would like people to think for themselves, look at the absurdity of mere Religion, and make a rational decision for themselves.

6. So you simply contribute........you can always check back with the administrator, unless, of course, you have a PR problem with the administrator.........which seems to be a running theme with regards to your personal interaction with people.

Beast FCD

5 days ago