Re: AIG 2/27/04

        50+ years ago my father, a classics scholar & conservative Missouri
Synod Lutheran, gave one of the faculty lectures at Ohio University on "The
legacy of Christian humanism." He was using the word "humanism" in what was
at one time its primary sense, the study of the humanities, & especially of
the language & literature of classical antiquity. "Christian humanism", a
concept that goes back to the Renaissance, places such study within a
Christian context and expands it to include culture developed within a
distinctively Christian culture - e.g., Dante.

        There have always been some Christians who had trouble with humanism
in this sense. That is the source, e.g., of Tertullian's "What is there in
common between Athens and Jerusalem?" But mainstream Christianity has
generally held that such studies are appropriate & even necessary.
Christians can appreciate everything that is good - & of course can
criticize the bad that may be mixed with it - no matter what its source.
Humanism in this sense is quite consistent with even quite conservative
theologies - as long as they are intelligently conservative.

        Unfortunately the term "humanism" has become identified with
atheism, naturalism, &c. Somebody else may be able to elaborate more fully
on the way in which the word took on this sense but I think it's largely the
fault of the kind of people who promoted the 1st "Humanist Manifesto" which
identified "humanism" in contrast to traditional religion. This sense was
then picked up by some fundamentalists - I think Falwell et al started doing
this around 1980 - as a term to discredit opponents. The result, I'm
afraid, is that the word "humanism" has become pretty much useless for
publisc discourse. If I said that my father was a "humanist", most people
would think that he was a disciple of John Dewey or something similar, which
would be about 180 degrees from the truth. The situation is similar to that
with the word "creationism", though in this case it's the atheists who were
1st responsible for debasing the word.

        OTOH I think that Burgy's usage below corresponds more to words like
"humane" or "humanitarian" than to "humanism" in either of the above sense.
(I inherited a certain amount of linguistic pedantry from my father.)

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "John W Burgeson" <jwburgeson@juno.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 1:38 PM
Subject: AIG 2/27/04

AIG on or about 2/27/04 wrote again to its faithful and gullible
supporters. My comments in CAPS:

Q: What is a 'Christian humanist'?

PERHAPS IT IS A CHRISTIAN WHO ACCEPTS AND SUPPORTS THE GREAT HUMANIST
IDEALS, ONES ESPOUSED PARTICULARLY BY CHRIST. AMONG THESE ARE THE
ADMONITION OF MICAH 6:8:

WHAT DOES THE LORD DESIRE OF YOU?

1. DO JUSTICE
2. LOVE MERCY
3. WALK HUMBLY WITH YOUR GOD.

A HUMANIST, BY DEFINITION, DESIRES THE BEST FOR HUMAN BEINGS. FREEDOM,
RESPECT, DIGNITY, SUPPORT FROM OTHERS, ETC.

BUT TO AIG, A HUMANIST IS SIMPLY ONE WHO HAS IDEAS ABOUT HUMAN
REPRODUCTION AND SEXUAL PRACTICES THAT ARE NOT IN LINE WITH
FUNDAMENTALIST DOGMA.

A: Have you noticed that when it comes to moral issues, so many of our
leaders in government and education seem to side with humanists?

ACTUALLY, NOT AS MUCH AS I'D LIKE, ALTHOUGH THEIR WORDS ARE OFTEN
"CORRECT."

BUT SOMETIMES THEY DO GOOD THINGS:

I AM REMINDED OF THE LATE PRESIDENT JOHNSON, WHO DID THE "CHRISTIAN
HUMANIST" THING WHEN HE RAMMED THROUGH A CONTROVERSIAL CIVIL RIGHTS BILL
IN THE 60S.

I AM REMINDED OF THE ACTIONS OF FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT WHOSE "CHRISTIAN
HUMANISM" LED THE NATION INTO CARING FOR ITS ELDERLY WITH THE SOCIAL
SECURITY LEGISLATION OF THE 30S.

I AM REMINDED OF TEDDY ROOSEVELT AND THE "TRUST BUSTING" OF THE EARLY
20TH CENTURY.

I AM REMINDED OF THE "CHRISTIAN HUMANISM" OF DWIGHT EISENHOWER, WHEN HE
WARNED US OF THE DANGERS OF TOO STRONG A MILITARY.

I AM REMINDED OF THE "CHRISTIAN HUMANISM" OF JIMMY CARTER, AS HE
NEGOTIATED A PEACE TREATY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND EGYPT IN THE 70S.

NIXON, BUSH MAY ALSO HAVE EXHIBITED "CHRISTIAN HUMANISM," BUT AT THE
MOMENT I CANNOT THINK OF ANY EXAMPLES.

Not only do they side with them, but you'll find that many of our leaders
attend church and claim to be Christians. Why do leaders in the church
often side with the humanists on moral issues such as homosexual
behavior, abortion, and so on?

HOMOSEXUAL ACTIONS AND ABORTION SEEM TO BE WHAT AIG THINKS CHARACTERIZE A
"HUMANIST." AIG ALSO SEEMS TO CLAIM THAT A CHRISTIAN MUST HAVE ONE
SPECIFIC POSITION (THE SAME AS AIG'S) ON THESE ISSUES.

THEY ARE WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS. BUT THEY HAVE SET UP A STRAWMAN WHICH THEY
WILL NOW DEMOLISH.

The main reason is that the church, by and large, has accepted
evolutionary ideas. That may be surprising, but think about it: people
have been taught that God's Word, and particularly the book of Genesis
must be reinterpreted on the basis of man's evolutionary ideas. They've
been trained to think that their opinions are a higher authority than
God's Word. As a result, they do not use God's Word as the foundation for
their thinking.

AIG, OF COURSE, BLAMES THE FACT OF EVOLUTION FOR THE ILLS THEY HAVE SET
UP AS A STRAWMAN. SENTENCES 1 AND 2 (ABOVE) ARE CORRECT, OF COURSE.
SENTENCE 2 WOULD ALSO BE ACCURATE IF IT READ: "That may be surprising,
but think about it: people have been taught that God's Word, and
particularly the book of Genesis must be reinterpreted on the basis of
man's SCIENTIFIC ideas.

IF YOU DISCARD WHAT WE KNOW TODAY (SCIENTIFICALLY) ABOUT THE PHYSICAL
WORLD, THE BIBLE SIMPLY TURNS INTO A BOOK OF MAGIC. MAGIC, BY THE WAY,
THAT JUST DOES NOT WORK.

Also, most of these people have also been trained in a public education
system that's anti-God. They think in terms of a secular worldview.

AIG CALLS PUBLIC EDUCATION, IN WHICH MOST OF OUR TEACHERS ARE CHRISTIANS,
AS "ANTI-GOD." THAT REALLY DENIGRATES A MAJORITY OF OUR TEACHERS, DOESN'T
IT?

In a real sense, we could say that the church is producing
humanistic-thinking Christians-thus my term 'Christian humanists.' The
church needs to find its answers in God's Word, beginning with Genesis,
and abandon compromise.

AIG, AGAIN, INSISTS THAT GENESIS, NOT JESUS CHRIST, IS THE BEGINNING OF
"RIGHT THINKING" CHRISTIANITY. THEY ALSO, IN THE ABOVE, CLAIM THAT ANYONE
WHO DOES NOT FOLLOWING THEIR PARTY LINE IS "COMPROMISING." THIS LACK OF
RESPECT FOR PEOPLE WITH DIFFERING VIEWS PERMEATES THEIR PROPAGANDA.

Quotable quote:
'Scientists are accustomed to lack of knowledge. It is their aim to
steadily reduce that lack. To suppose that because we don't know we must
assume a "Creator" is to give up the game to settle for ignorance.'

-Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, p.82, October 1981.

NOT AT ALL A BAD QUOTE. IT SAYS NOTHING, OF COURSE, ABOUT GOD, PRO OR
CON. BUT AIG, WITH THEIR BLINDERS ON, CANNOT RECOGNIZE THIS ELEMENTARY
FACT.

AIG CONTINUES TO PACK AN AMAZING AMOUNT OF WORDS INTO THE SMALLEST
POSSIBLE AMOUNT OF RATIONAL THOUGHT.

Burgy

Today's quip: Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic!

                                                 www.burgy.50megs.com

________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
Received on Tue Jun 8 09:26:52 2004