Humanism, opinions please

[freesoulhope]

There is clear evidence against your statement. Even Jesus says he is not all good, and only God deserves that appelation Mark 10:18.

I am stating my beliefs so far as Jesus is concerned. It is Humanism that makes the claim that it is a search for what is objectively true; and that it rejects faith based belief. I stated that Morality cannot be objectively true if God does not exist; Humanism teaches that things are wrong; hence the contradiction. Thats the point i was making, whether yuou believe that Jesus is God or is not.

I am not an expert, but i suspect that your taking Mark 10:18. out of context to the rest of what is written. But you make a good point; and being far from an expect, i would like to see what other Catholics have to say about the matter.

Maybe we should start a thread; “Is Jesus God” according to scripture?

 

[freesoulhope]

There is clear evidence against your statement. Even Jesus says he is not all good, and only God deserves that appelation Mark 10:18.
.

I found something from another, more knowlegible, poster that sort of contradicts your claim. One must read scripture in its entirity, not just pick things out.

Jesus also states that, “the Father and I are one” while stating that ,“the Father is greater than I”. Jesus is fully human and fully divine so both statements are sound when describing the Person of Jesus Christ.

So even if You are correct in saying that Jesus is not perfect in his humanity, he is perfect in his divinity. So far as Jesus Christ, as a man, Is concerend, he did not sin, and was born with out sin.

Hence, If Jesus Christ is God, then he is the Perfect Good, since God Is the perfect Good.

Peace.

 

[Pier]

There is nothing scientific in catholic beliefs. On the contrary many of its practices are quite unscientific. Like the prohibition of contraception.

Please…

Just because something CAN be done, doesn’t mean it SHOULD be. How much sense does it make to ingest artificial hormones? & have you ever read the possible side effects? How about the problems with that b/c patch? What a waste of God’s extraordinary gift of scientific resources to us - creating these expensive drugs that annihilate our very existence.

As Catholics, we do know that many things in this world will not be in accord with the teachings of Christ’s Church, but that there’s always hope for everyone.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Nichjake,

I am sorry to see that you don’t want to discuss secular humanist morality. The questions asked were legitimate, at least on my part. I am genuinely curious about how real morality can be determined from subjective ideas.

 

[Peregrino]

So even if You are correct in saying that Jesus is not perfect in his humanity, he is perfect in his divinity.

“All good” should by most definitions mean the absence of sin. Agreed? If Jesus’ statement “only the Father is all good” is correct, what part then of Jesus (human/divine) possessed sin?

 

[Benadam]

“All good” should by most definitions mean the absence of sin. Agreed? If Jesus’ statement “only the Father is all good” is correct, what part then of Jesus (human/divine) possessed sin?

Jesus didn’t say he wasn’t good. read it carefully and with the possibility in your mind that Jesus is speaking as a human being God.

 

[Benadam]

There is clear evidence against your statement. Even Jesus says he is not all good, and only God deserves that appelation Mark 10:18.

Aside from the fact that Jesus is saying he isn’t “the same as God” here, if we 1) accept the definition that humanism is the search for an objective truth as well as other tenets described above and recognize that 2) Jesus asks us to “be perfect as the father is perfect” (we can assume that Jesus was attempting the same), and 3) accept that we are made in the image of God, I think the case for Jesus being a humanist is fairly strong. Humanism in this sense is a search for God (truth) and a quest for self-perfection as humans. This would naturally include building knowledge through science, research and exploring our humanity through the arts.

If we require a definition that humanism be completely divorced from theism then Jesus was not a humanist.

 

[Benadam]

There is clear evidence against your statement. Even Jesus says he is not all good, and only God deserves that appelation Mark 10:18.

If we require a definition that humanism be completely divorced from theism then Jesus was not a humanist.

Jesus didn’t say he wasn’t good. He asked why he was called that and that only God is good. Read it carefully with the possibility in your mind that Jesus is a human being God.

 

[Peregrino]

Jesus didn’t say he wasn’t good. He asked why he was called that and that only God is good. Read it carefully with the possibility in your mind that Jesus is a human being God.

Mark 10:18 "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. New American Standard Bible.

I think it is quite clear that Jesus, speaking in the first person, using the preposition “except”, is drawing a distinction between himself (and everyone else) and God regarding the adjective “good”. He is using “good” in this sense as an all or nothing proposition. Reading this in context does not produce the effect you desire: namely that Jesus is trying to draw the listener into the conclusion that Jesus is God. It is really a stretch and a violation of grammatical understanding to assume that in this simple sentence Jesus is saying “I am the same as He that IS good”.

In a sense the sentence is a mild rebuke; a rebuke which seems consistent with Jesus’ message in the synoptic Gospels, namely to turn his listeners towards God. Additionally, it is only 15 verses later that Jesus refers to himself as the “Son of Man”–not even the “Son of God” or better yet, God himself.

 

[Benadam]

Mark 10:18 "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. New American Standard Bible.

I

think it is quite clear that Jesus, speaking in the first person, using the preposition “except”, is drawing a distinction between himself (and everyone else) and God regarding the adjective “good”. He is using “good” in this sense as an all or nothing proposition. Reading this in context does not produce the effect you desire: namely that Jesus is trying to draw the listener into the conclusion that Jesus is God. It is really a stretch and a violation of grammatical understanding to assume that in this simple sentence Jesus is saying “I am the same as He that IS good”.

Where you err is in how you are hearing the words. You hear accusation where it isn’t. Jesus taught to be carefull about how we hear. It’s always a good idea when an accusation is implied to review the context carefully. This man could say to Jesus that he had not broken the commandments , this is a man with a clear conscience, what would Jesus accuse him of? In fact the opportunity to teach the lesson Jesus taught required that the man be an example of the height of obedience to the Law and a rebuke even a mild one would undermine the opportunity for Jesus to say, " there is one thing you lack". Jesus tells trhe man how to not just avoid sin but to be perfect. “Follow Me’ Jesus say’s. Now it stands to reason that in Jesus view He is perfect already .
Which bringas us back to Jesus original statement 'Why do you call me good?”

Read Ezekiel you will find that ‘one like a son of man’ is surrounded by all the signs and symbols that indicate the presence of God. Can’t remember exactly where.

 

[Peregrino]

Where you err is in how you are hearing the words. You hear accusation where it isn’t. Jesus taught to be carefull about how we hear. It’s always a good idea when an accusation is implied to review the context carefully. This man could say to Jesus that he had not broken the commandments , this is a man with a clear conscience, what would Jesus accuse him of? In fact the opportunity to teach the lesson Jesus taught required that the man be an example of the height of obedience to the Law and a rebuke even a mild one would undermine the opportunity for Jesus to say, " there is one thing you lack". Jesus tells trhe man how to not just avoid sin but to be perfect. “Follow Me’ Jesus say’s. Now it stands to reason that in Jesus view He is perfect already .
Which bringas us back to Jesus original statement 'Why do you call me good?”

Read Ezekiel you will find that ‘one like a son of man’ is surrounded by all the signs and symbols that indicate the presence of God. Can’t remember exactly where.

Aside from the fact that you quoted me and then put your own comments in my quote, making it look like I said what you said, I really don’t understand what you are saying.

I think I made my point fine-you are misreading the text or simply reading into it what you want to see. The sense I read into that passage is the normal sense of the english language (it also reads the same way in Latin and Greek “none is good, but one, God”).

I don’t know where you are going with the resume analogy. God is God, and can do or say whatever God chooses…God need not hide…

The presence of God does not imbue those in the presence with divinity. I assume that we are always in the presence of God.

 

[Benadam]

Aside from the fact that you quoted me and then put your own comments in my quote, making it look like I said what you said, I really don’t understand what you are saying.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is straying into side issues. Please stay on topic or take side issues to new threads in the proper fora. Thank you.

 

[Peregrino]

Anyway the normal sense doesn’t necessarily apply if the speaker is someone who spoke in an extraordinary way, also the transliteration was not disputed.

I will grant the Jesus was an extraordinary person, however, the issue in question is just how extraordinary. You are trying to assume your conclusion by stating that Jesus “spoke in an extraordinary way” in this instance. From my perspective, the language sounds quite normal to me. The burden of proof is upon you who are making this claim. I have only stated that normal usage requires the common interpretation of the sentence.

I don’t feel an exchange of ideas is possible between you and I on this subject.

Works for me. Let’s get back on track with humanism.

 

[Doug50]

aggg, here we go again.

nichjake, Secular humanism is an oxymoran. Why? Because…

Secuarlism holds to a belief in naturalism. Naturalism holds to a belief in moral relativism — aka moral anti-realism. For naturalism, Natural Rights Don’t Exist

Humanism holds to the inherent (quoting your def) “dignity” in each human person. To have any real value, an inherent dignity must be an objective quality. Humanism, therefore, holds to the belief that person are the possessors of, not just civil rights, human rights. Human rights are by necessaity moral objectivism — aka moral realism. Human rights are independent of cultural relativism.

iep.utm.edu/h/hum-rts.htm
"The doctrine of human rights rests upon a particularly fundamental philosophical claim: that there exists a rationally identifiable moral order, an order whose legitimacy precedes contingent social and historical conditions and applies to all human beings everywhere and at all times. On this view, moral beliefs and concepts are capable of being objectively validated as fundamentally and universally true. The contemporary doctrine of human rights is one of a number of universalist moral perspectives. The origins and development of the theory of human rights is inextricably tied to the development of moral universalism. The history of the philosophical development of human rights is punctuated by a number of specific moral doctrines which, though not themselves full and adequate expressions of human rights, have nevertheless provided a number of philosophical prerequisites for the contemporary doctrine. These include a view of morality and justice as emanating from some pre-social domain, the identification of which provides the basis for distinguishing between ‘true’ and merely ‘conventional’ moral principles and beliefs. The essential prerequisites for a defence of human rights also include a conception of the individual as the bearer of certain ‘natural’ rights and a particular view of the inherent and equal moral worth of each rational individual. "

eg. human rights are moral objectivisms.

How can you be both a moral realist and a moral anti-realist at the same time? you can’t…so marrying secualism to humanism is an oxymoran.

 

[Exalt]

I think secular humanism is fantastic. The emphasis is on human beings helping eachother and holds compassion as a way of life. There’s nothing wrong with it, in my book.

 

[Peregrino]

To have any real value, an inherent dignity must be an objective quality.

Please explain/defend further this statement.

 

[bogeydogg]

“All good” should by most definitions mean the absence of sin. Agreed? If Jesus’ statement “only the Father is all good” is correct, what part then of Jesus (human/divine) possessed sin?

Jesus is asking the man if he was acknoledging Christ as God.

 

[bogeydogg]

My biggest problem with humanism is that it assumes a meta-truth, “Humanity is valuable,” without explaining exactly how that is true. Why should life be valuable if there is no authority upon which its value may be declared?

My problem with secular humanism is that, by disallowing God, it asserts that man comes from nothing significant and goes to nothing significant and yet is himself significant while he is here on earth. Why should that be?

 

[Peregrino]

My biggest problem with humanism is that it assumes a meta-truth, “Humanity is valuable,” without explaining exactly how that is true. Why should life be valuable if there is no authority upon which its value may be declared?

My problem with secular humanism is that, by disallowing God, it asserts that man comes from nothing significant and goes to nothing significant and yet is himself significant while he is here on earth. Why should that be?

Its not like we can “prove” the existence of God in any objective sense. “God-exists” is a meta-truth in this sense. If we can function as though humanity is valuable in the absence of “authority” (since you think this is necessary-I don’t) isn’t it even more meaningful for those of us with faith in God?

Your second paragraph makes a nice point. This “existential dilemma” of the insignificance of humanity given (for the atheist) our origins and telos in meaninglessness would in my eyes make human existence something completely priceless. It doesn’t seem to be a problem to me at all.

“Why should that be” is the ultimate question that confronts us. Some of us answer that with God, some with science, some don’t think an answer is necessary and either attempt to live their lives in a moral fashion (using a criteria they choose) or just live it up…