Can Christians be humanists and moralists?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Can Christians be humanists and moralists?

Ultimately, no, they can't. Given the repeated injunction to ignore the here-and-now in the hope of heaven, 'Christian humanist' is an axiomatically incoherent term.

This isn't to say they some Christians (and other religionists) aren't very fine people - we all know that they are. But in order to be a humanist, they would need to do so in spite of their religion, not because of it.

Boru

[fr0d0]

You are correct. But why would I make them up? lol

I can.only presume stupidity. Anyone stupid enough to confuse humanism with hedonism is stupid enough to invent someone to prove their point.

Also, Christians seem to quite like inventing imaginary people to back up their nonsense.

You complete a hole lol

(Just returning ad hom for ad hom, and come alongside )

[Michael B]

The question is not whether Christians can act moral or not, as they undoubtedly can, but is it also possible for a person who consistently derives their sense of morality from a book as anti-humanistic as the Bible (or if you're Muslim, the Qur'an) to actually be a moralist?--to ponder deeply the difficult moral dilemmas or social conflicts (sorry but you can't apply Jesus' few moral insights, such as the Golden Rule, to the majority of situations this might include) that often throw themselves at humanity--and be relied upon to arrive at sensible, rational, compassionate, and commendable moral convictions?

If any Christian finds my question comically condescending, well, how does it feel to have the tables turned?

It might be worth recalling that the title 'humanist' was first applied to a group of renaissance Christians. Desiderius Erasmus was the poster-boy of this group in the 16th century. I have a lot of sympathy for, and a strong sense of affiliation with, these humanists. They had a passion for education that has not always gripped the rest of the Church (and has not always gripped unchurched societies either). It is perhaps only in the second half of my life that I have learned to value more those subjects, the 'humanities', so valued by humanism (science tends, generally, to lean more towards scholasticism than humanism; and I think that misses something humanists, and the humanities, bring to our wider understanding).

Desiderius Erasmus, 1532

[Fidel_Castronaut]

^^ Excellent post, Michael.

[tjakey]

If history is any guide Christians can be pretty much anything they want to be. All they need do is pick a choose which parts of the bible they want to focus on or, if no passage "fits" just right, how they want to interpret words to mean what they want them to mean. Christians help start the anti-slavery, women's rights, and civil rights movements. And other Christians opposed them. Christians called for the US to enter WWII on the side of England, on the side of Germany, or to stay out of it altogether. Christians were for and against Vietnam. Today it seems Christians are most vocally for Conservative politics and Republicans, and being a Christian (so far as I and tell) is almost a requirement for claiming to support the T-party. But there are Christians who voted for Obama, and who are likely to vote for the Democrat on the ballot.

My suspicion is that it is slightly harder for Christians to be either moral or humanists, basic Christian ideology is counterproductive to either. But when you get right down to it, it is only religion after all. Except for the very few living on the fringes of religious fundamentalism, and those political types who need religion to cling to power, most people, even believers, don't allow their religion to screw up their lives too bad.

[Mudhammam]

Is Michael B the member formally known as Michael?

[Michael B]

Is Michael B the member formally known as Michael?

Yes, I've managed to lock myself out of the other account.

[jesus_wept]

I can.only presume stupidity. Anyone stupid enough to confuse humanism with hedonism is stupid enough to invent someone to prove their point.

Also, Christians seem to quite like inventing imaginary people to back up their nonsense.

You complete a hole lol

(Just returning ad hom for ad hom, and come alongside )

Im not convinced answering a question is an ad hom. An ad hom would've been if I just said don't believe him because he's stupid, instead I explained why you're stupid and answered your question.

And calling me an a hole isn't an ad hominem either, it's an insult (which I don't mind and shall turn the other cheek). But, if you're going to use logical fallacies, at least get them right, otherwise people might think you're stupid.

[Michael B]

^^ Excellent post, Michael.

Thank you for your kind words.

---

^^ Excellent post, Michael.

Thank you for your kind words.

[fr0d0]

You complete a hole lol

(Just returning ad hom for ad hom, and come alongside )

Im not convinced answering a question is an ad hom. An ad hom would've been if I just said don't believe him because he's stupid, instead I explained why you're stupid and answered your question.

And calling me an a hole isn't an ad hominem either, it's an insult (which I don't mind and shall turn the other cheek). But, if you're going to use logical fallacies, at least get them right, otherwise people might think you're stupid.

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).