[OPEN] Humanism and the Church

[Rev. Smith]

Whoa, whoa, whoa, there... them's some broad strokes, my friend.

Your assertion that "Most humanists I know value only the lives of persons now present, thus they are against the death penalty for crimes, but in favor of abortion" is way too simplistic. I have witnessed a dear friend, a humanist for all intents and purposes, have to struggle with terminating a pregnancy because the baby had a very serious defect that would cause the child to suffer and ultimately die shortly after birth. She and her husband sought second and third opinions, and they did their own research -- the defect was clear, and there was nothing that could be done. Heartbreakingly, she and her husband chose to end the pregnancy, and they delivered their baby as lovingly as they could... they held him, wondered in his form, and took pictures and still mourn his loss. But they are at peace with this decision, knowing that they prevented the suffering they knew he would have to endure. There was no question to my friend that this life inside her was indeed a human life, and she took the decision to end it extremely seriously. The sacredness that she and her husband felt in regard to that life is very deep and real.

I do not doubt that this was deeply painful and difficult for your friends, but this proves my point. To a humanist this decsion is possable, they can choose to kill the unborn child to avoid the horrable consequences for themselves and the child of the defect. For the Christian this is not possable, becasue we are "other directed" God instructs us that we may not kill (or do no murder for the KJV fans). Thus for us the what to do about this situation simply doesn't include abort the child.

I share this example to show that this love and wonder in life is not "ad hoc" and it is certainly is an example of merciful love. There is also nothing here that, to our minds, is incompatible with Christian respect for life. It was because of this profound respect for this child that the decision was made-- selflessly, not selfishly hoping for an unlikely miracle to happen, and in denial of the seriousness of the child's situation.

Sorry for getting a bit wound up here... these events were fairly recent and the feelings are still fresh. The experience has shown me that ethical issues around life are far more complex than many would have us believe.

No need to apologise for passion, it is the people who don't get wound up about profound moral dilemas that worry me.

I know it doesn't seem that way to you, but this is a perfect example of ad hoc morality, or subjective morality if you prefer. These parents were faced with a horrendious moral problem, what to do about an almost certainly fatal birth defect. She choose abortion becasue she holds herself to be the ultimate moral authority. For each situation, a personal moral decsion is made.

Those that acknowledge God (by whatever name they know God) do not have themselves for an ultimate moral arbitor, but rather have the precepts of God, as known thought their faith.

This is the fundimantl differance between humanism and faith.

You and your friends will be in my prayers, asking God to grant you all solace and peace.

Pax.

 

[Finella]

I do not doubt that this was deeply painful and difficult for your friends, but this proves my point. To a humanist this decsion is possable, they can choose to kill the unborn child to avoid the horrable consequences for themselves and the child of the defect. For the Christian this is not possable, becasue we are "other directed" God instructs us that we may not kill (or do no murder for the KJV fans). Thus for us the what to do about this situation simply doesn't include abort the child.

Okay, first: you missed my initial point, rebutting that humanists do not value the lives of unborn children. My example was to prove that these lives are valued greatly, even if to you my friends "murdered" their child. I would like you to acknowledge this error in your earlier assertion, please.

Second, can you definitively show me where in the Bible it says a Christian is prohibited from having an abortion? I am not aware of the scriptural passage, but I would be happy to see it. I'm not looking for references such as "you knew me in my mother's womb" and the like, I'm looking for commandments (beyond the 'thou shalt not murder' -- because any good theologian can cite circumstances where God wouldn't necessarily hold us accountable for killing someone if there was good enough reason) saying abortion is prohibited for Christians.

Third, let's define 'ad hoc' so we are clear here. Dictionary.com says it is:
1. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose: an ad hoc compensation committee.
or:
2. Improvised and often impromptu: “On an ad hoc basis, Congress has... placed... ceilings on military aid to specific countries” (New York Times).

This is not the same as your definition of it being simply "subjective." My friends' experience here is an example of their valuing life in all forms, in all stages, in all conditions. I know this friend through our work as therapists together, where we worked with convicted drug felons in a rehab together. We loved and supported these men as they worked to beat their addictions and gain footholds in society again. Their valuing of life is extremely consistent in all areas of their living, and not at all "subjective" or "improvised".

Perhaps they are their highest moral authority, as you claim. Perhaps it is their ingrained sense of morality they gained, having been raised Catholic. Perhaps it is the authority of society on the whole. I think it is presumptive of you to assume that they believe their morality comes only from them. But I do know they have faith in people, and faith in themselves, and faith that no matter what -- even through this tragedy -- all shall be well. In many ways I see them having more faith than some Christians I know.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Okay, first: you missed my initial point, rebutting that humanists do not value the lives of unborn children. My example was to prove that these lives are valued greatly, even if to you my friends "murdered" their child. I would like you to acknowledge this error in your earlier assertion, please.

I could be nice and acknowledge it, but I would be lieing to you. Values, if they have meaning are absolutes. As I said earlier, I have no doubt that your friends were in agony over this terrable decsion, and that you and all of the people who love them shared that pain. But to value life, to say I will not kill, is to preclude the option of killing another.

Second, can you definitively show me where in the Bible it says a Christian is prohibited from having an abortion? I am not aware of the scriptural passage, but I would be happy to see it. I'm not looking for references such as "you knew me in my mother's womb" and the like, I'm looking for commandments (beyond the 'thou shalt not murder' -- because any good theologian can cite circumstances where God wouldn't necessarily hold us accountable for killing someone if there was good enough reason) saying abortion is prohibited for Christians.

Thou shalt not kill.
No greator love has one man who lays own his life for another.

and yes,

I knew you in the womb...

Yours is a very neat debating trick, you demanded an answer but then limited the scope of the answer. The answer is: Thou shalt not kill. The question then becomes; Is a child a human who can be murdered before it is born. The answer at law, in this country is NO, until it is born it may be a human, but it is not a person, and thus has no legal rights.

The answer from scripture is (and it starts in Genisis and threads all through the Torah and then into the New Tetstament) is that our souls are breathed into us, by God, at the moment of our making. Thus the majority of Christians conclude that thou shalt not kill encompasss the unborn.

You are right, there is no one liner - thou shalt not abort babies, becasue it is subsumed in the not killing part.

Third, let's define 'ad hoc' so we are clear here. Dictionary.com says it is:
1. Formed for or concerned with one specific purpose: an ad hoc compensation committee.

Which is exactly how an awful lot of humanist ethical and moral formulations seem to me, for each singular problem or instance a personal moaral or ethical decsion is reached. This does not mean that humanists will always come up with the correct, or incorrect answer (from the perspective of others), nobody is wrong about everything, being right about everything is extreamly rare.

This is not the same as your definition of it being simply "subjective."

Sure seems that way to me.

My friends' experience here is an example of their valuing life in all forms, in all stages, in all conditions. I know this friend through our work as therapists together, where we worked with convicted drug felons in a rehab together. We loved and supported these men as they worked to beat their addictions and gain footholds in society again. Their valuing of life is extremely consistent in all areas of their living, and not at all "subjective" or "improvised".

They sound like wonderful people, and are to be praised and thanked for devoting their lives to serveing others. I think we are dealing with implications rather than actualities here. You seem to belive that the word "subjective" implies frivolity, as I've said before I have no doubt that you and your friends are serious, moral and committed people, that the decsion to have an abortion was not entered into lightly, or without care, concern, and sorrow and pain. That doesn't alter the fact that it was entred into, that your friends asigned themselves the role of sole moral arbitor of the child's life or death. It was a subjective decsion, no matter how hard it was to arrive at.

(I am well versed in the femanist and post femanist arguments about the absolute nature of a woman's right to control her own body, here we have the simpler clash of ethical systems, once we conclude that the featus is both human and a person, the mother's rights and its rights clash - thou shalt not kill then describes the outer limit of her rights visa vis the child)

Perhaps they are their highest moral authority, as you claim. Perhaps it is their ingrained sense of morality they gained, having been raised Catholic. Perhaps it is the authority of society on the whole. I think it is presumptive of you to assume that they believe their morality comes only from them. But I do know they have faith in people, and faith in themselves, and faith that no matter what -- even through this tragedy -- all shall be well. In many ways I see them having more faith than some Christians I know.

Probably ture, the sad realty is that an awful lot of us Christians arn't very good at it -

I wish you and your friends peace, solace and joy.
I hope that one day they will choose God, we could use more good, moral people who are willing to serve others in the fold.

Pax

 

[Simon_Templar]

I don't want to butt in too much to the conversation between Finella and Rev. Smith but I would like to comment in response to something finella said.

Specificly the statement that "thou shalt not kill" obviously has exceptions if there is good enough reason.

I agree with this statement. The commandment is not a general prohibition of ever taking life, but of committing murder.. taking life without a justifiable reason.

The question then, is what makes taking a life justifiable. Phrasing the question "show me where the bible prohibits abortion, but don't use 'thou shalt not kill' because it has exceptions" is a little too broad of an exclusion. If that were the case you could as easily say tell me where the bible prohibits killing and don't use "thou shalt not kill" because it has exceptions..

The point being, that we have to use thou shalt not kill, we merely have to figure out what the exceptions are, and what they aren't.

This is an area of fine, but absolute lines. When you begin to grey areas out, it opens the doors very quickly to horrendous evils.

The ability to take life is primarily an issue of authority. God has the right to take life because all life belongs to him. This is why you don't have a right to take your own life, because in truth, your life belongs to God, not to you.
In order for a human to have a justification to take life, they must have received the authority, the right to do so, from God. There are general situations in which God has delegated this authority.

#1 Self defense, defense of others. The most basic right to take life, is to do so to defend yourself or to defend another person.
Even here there are tough questions and fine lines. For example, the right to defend yourself requires threat from the person. You can not kill someone to preserve your own life, if the person you are going to kill is not a direct threat to your life. For example. Your in a situation where only a certain number of people can survive, only enough food, or air, or what have you for a given number.. you can not kill some of the others there to ensure your survival. To do so would be murder.

Also, in order for something to be justifiable self defense, the person you are going to kill must have intent to do harm. If someone is endangering you, or another by an action they are taking, but they are not aware that they are causing a danger to you, and they have no intent to endanger you.. you do not have the right to kill them in self defense. These restrictions are long established within jurisprudence as the limits man has recognized on the right of self defense.

#2 The government has been given, by God, the right to kill in punishment, and in war. Paul tells us that God gave the power of the sword (the right to kill) to governments as a check on the spread of human evil, and an aid to the righteous.

The question you guys have to answer is, is it permissible to kill someone because you believe the suffering they would endure makes their life not worth living? If the answer is yes.. what are the implications for society.. are you stepping on a slippery slope?

 

[Fish and Bread]

The answer from scripture is (and it starts in Genisis and threads all through the Torah and then into the New Tetstament) is that our souls are breathed into us, by God, at the moment of our making. Thus the majority of Christians conclude that thou shalt not kill encompasss the unborn.

I have never seen it biblically demonstrably that life begins at conception, though, which means there is potentially a lot of wiggleroom in terms of what the biblical doctrine is on when life begins. Some pro-life advocates state that life begins at conception and thus birth control methods which prevent implanation are wrong and also the "morning after" pill. The medical profession says that pregnancy begins 10-14 days after conception when the fertilized egg implants itself on the uterine wall, however. Prior to that, something like 75% of fertilized eggs fail to implant, meaning that if we count them all as human beings, there are around three dead "babies" for every child that's born (Counting even noticeable miscarraiges) to a couple which *does not* use contraception. Sometimes I think people have a knee-jerk reaction that life begins at conception without thinking it through -- I've never heard of anyone praying for the souls of all the fertilized eggs that naturally didn't implant on people's uterine walls.

If we look to Jewish tradition, life is actually said to begin 40 days before birth, when the angels call out the name of a baby's future spouse from the heavens. That definition, though, is no longer really justifiable scientifically, as it doesn't coincide with any important events in embryotic/fetal development to my knowledge.

There is a lot of ambigiuity in terms of what God knowing us in the womb would mean on the abortion issue. Certainly, it would mean that late-term abortions would be wrong, but I'm not sure it's an across the board pro-life mandate.

 

[Simon_Templar]

I think that believing life begins at conception is the only safe standard to hold.

We will likely never know, in this life at least, the details of how and when God imparts a spirit and soul to a new person. In any attempt to determine this there is the strong risk that you may be wrong, and if you err on the side of placing the beginning of life (ensoulment) too late, you will end up with innocent blood on your head.

For that reason it is far better to err on the side of protecting life.

Jesus said that for those who cause little ones to stumble, it would be better for them to be tossed into the sea with a millstone around their neck. It is also fairly obvious how God regards the shedding of innocent blood.

This is the kind of issue that brings home the quote "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". No matter what you intend, if you err in your judgement here you could end up with the blood of millions on your hands. You may think that since your not directly involved, you don't have to worry about that, but simply look to history. Most germans weren't involved witht he holocaust, yet the stain of it is with all who gave their consent and approval, all who did not oppose it. Most southerners in the US didn't own slaves prior to the civil war, yet they all payed the price for allowing it to happen, and for defending it.


When it comes to the issue of when life begins, to me it is much like the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Unless you can prove beyond doubt that there is no life there, you have to respect it, because the consequences of being wrong are simply too great. Its better to let the guilty go, than it is to punnish the innocent.. its better to face the difficult issues of unwanted pregnancies etc, than it is to kill the innocent.

 

[Finella]

Simon beat me to the punch -- in that the commandment he interprets as "thou shalt not kill", also interpreted as "thou shalt not murder" does have Biblical exceptions. So first you need to define which interpretation you are going to use... because "kill" is much broader a statement than "murder". I would like to know Rev. Smith's preference here.

However, even so, Rev. Smith asserts that Christians -- in particular -- have "no choice" in this matter, and in his example we cannot have abortions in order to adhere to this commandment from God. This would assume that Christians universally agree on this matter, and unfortunately for him, they categorically do not agree on this matter. So either we have "good" and "bad" Christians here, determined by how well we adhere to Rev. Smith's definition of Christian morality, or we have a wide range of Christian morality. I don't think Rev. Smith is intending to define Christian morality for all Christians, so I will posit that there is a very wide range of Christian morality, and thus Christian morality is not black/white or absolute.

Not that I want to get stuck in the abortion debate, but Jewish law actually permits a mother to abort her child if she or her doctor suspect that her life is in danger from the unborn child. And interestingly, they err on the side of the protection of the mother--if either person (mom or doctor) disagrees about the threat, the abortion is chosen because the mother's life is worth more than the baby's--regardless if the baby is innocent and not intending to harm the mother. The scriptural background for this is based in OT law where an unborn baby's life is valued (in currency) as less than a child's or an adult's life.

The reason I asked specifically for scripture regarding abortion is because the interpretation of the "thou shalt not kill/murder" commandment is simply too broad. Additionally, I wondered why Rev. Smith was saying that Christians had a particular reason for not having abortions as opposed to humanists, let alone other belief traditions. But if Rev. Smith is basing his argument on OT scripture, then why does Jewish tradition have such a different view on abortion compared to Rev. Smith?

Now, yes, this is different than the issue my friends experienced. But let us look at the larger context here.

Medicine as we know it today has given us the ability to extend life and treat many many conditions that otherwise would have been fatal in recent years. Additionally, modern medicine has also given us the ability to look at fetal abnormalities fairly early and even find ways to treat these abnormalities.

What I find interesting is that the ethical question regarding the benefits of such life-extending measures have not been asked -- only the ethical question of not using these measures. In my friends' case, their baby was literally missing half of his heart. Should he have been born, the child would have had to be immediately placed on full life support. If he was strong enough, he would have been taken to surgery and an attempt would have been made to reconstruct his heart so that it could function. Given that there was half a heart missing, this is, obviously, not something that can be done very well. It would be possible to get a heart transplant, but the likelihood that the child would be strong enough to survive until then was very slim.

Now, my question to those who would say it was unethical to abort this child is: why would God cause a child to suffer in this way, when it was highly likely he would be in a great deal of pain and suffering and would die? What benefit is there to God's kingdom for allowing this child to be born-full term and then know nothing but the NICU and surgery until he breathed his last?

On the other hand, in the end this child knew nothing but the peace of his mother's womb. He was born unhurriedly, sadly, but lovingly, and the marks of his brief presence here are still cherished. After all this, though, my friend hopes to have more children. Would these children be here if her child had been born and suffered as he did? Would her heart be so broken she would not be able to tolerate taking the risk of having another baby? Who knows.

There are people who choose to carry such babies to term, and I do not criticize their choices. However, what I wish to point out is that there is much moral ambiguity in these situations -- at least in regard to the ending of life (there is no moral ambiguity as to the worth of life, however). And I think Christians can (and do) make choices in both directions, often with deep reflection and consideration, and concluding that they have made the right choice.

So to bring it back to the OP--in terms of this issue, I still think that there's a wide range of Christian morality, and that Christians with deep faith and spirituality make choices that which other Christians would disagree.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Simon beat me to the punch -- in that the commandment he interprets as "thou shalt not kill", also interpreted as "thou shalt not murder" does have Biblical exceptions. So first you need to define which interpretation you are going to use... because "kill" is much broader a statement than "murder". I would like to know Rev. Smith's preference here.

I believe that the commandment, accuratly translated is : "Thou shalt not kill". Simon is correct that even in its absoluteness there are exceptions that the Bible appears to sanction. For example, as Simon points out St. Paul avers that the state is given the power to exact the death penalty, a nation is entitled to defend itself in war. We may intervene where one person seeks to murder another, and prevent it even to the cost of the would be murderers life. If there are any other exceptions I am unaware of them.

So, an unborn human is which? A criminal justly convicted by the state? An enemy in war? About to do murder or mayhem on another?

However, even so, Rev. Smith asserts that Christians -- in particular -- have "no choice" in this matter, and in his example we cannot have abortions in order to adhere to this commandment from God. This would assume that Christians universally agree on this matter, and unfortunately for him, they categorically do not agree on this matter. So either we have "good" and "bad" Christians here, determined by how well we adhere to Rev. Smith's definition of Christian morality, or we have a wide range of Christian morality. I don't think Rev. Smith is intending to define Christian morality for all Christians, so I will posit that there is a very wide range of Christian morality, and thus Christian morality is not black/white or absolute.

The Unied States is a Republic, Great Britian a constitutional Monarchy (despite not having written its constitution down) Many other nations practice some form of democracy, in all these places majority rule, the opinions of the Citizens is the ultimate truth. Religion is not democratic. The mere fact that a minority of Christians do not agree wth the teachings of the Church on the sanctity of life does not invalidate the teaching.

Once many people in this country believed in the morality of slavery, this did not make it right, it simply meant the error was widespread.

And yes, their is a great deal of diversity in Christian morality, but very little on the essential of the faith - nearly all Christians assent to the truth that Jesus commands that we Love God, love one another and keep the commandments. Even with the exceptions to thou shalt not kill the only argument in favor of any abortion is to preserve the life of the mother (the greatest gift implies that offering our lives for another may not be required, only offred - thus a mother who is told that bearing a child could kill her or cause grave injury may in faith choose to abort.)

Not that I want to get stuck in the abortion debate, but Jewish law actually permits a mother to abort her child if she or her doctor suspect that her life is in danger from the unborn child. And interestingly, they err on the side of the protection of the mother--if either person (mom or doctor) disagrees about the threat, the abortion is chosen because the mother's life is worth more than the baby's--regardless if the baby is innocent and not intending to harm the mother. The scriptural background for this is based in OT law where an unborn baby's life is valued (in currency) as less than a child's or an adult's life.

As noted above, most Christian denominatios agree, that the mother may not be required to offer her life in sacrafice for the child. But the case that got this sad discussion going wasn't about that, it was the humanist formulation that said that the mother had the right to decide the worth of the child's life to the child. Unless I misunderstood you (a possibility) the defect to the child did not represent a danger to the mother, but rather meant that it was highly proabable that the child would be born infirm, suffer pain, and die young. The decsion that was being made was not what sacrafice the mother was willing to make, but what value to put on the life of the child, to the child.

The reason I asked specifically for scripture regarding abortion is because the interpretation of the "thou shalt not kill/murder" commandment is simply too broad. Additionally, I wondered why Rev. Smith was saying that Christians had a particular reason for not having abortions as opposed to humanists, let alone other belief traditions. But if Rev. Smith is basing his argument on OT scripture, then why does Jewish tradition have such a different view on abortion compared to Rev. Smith?

A classic if A not B issue. By saying that Christians are forbidden abortion does not imply that everyone else chooses the opposite. The worlds great religions are far more in agreement over matters of morals then in disagreement. As you noted most Jewish communities allow for abortion under certain circumstances, as do many Christian sects (under the same test). Many other faiths have similar prohibitions.

Humanists on the other hand are forbidden nothing, since they acknowledge no authority higher then their own will. This will certainly lead many humanists to conclude that life is of such worth that abortion is wrong, while others will conclude that life has no intrinsic worth and abortion is an acceptable birth control method. Many will fall in the middle, and determine that life has great valuse, but may be taken in rare and difficult circumstances. In the case of your friends they appear to fall into this part of the spectrum. After much agoising they concluded that a short, disabled and pain filled life would be of little or no value to the child, and thus ended the life.

here is the core of the disagrerment : A humanist claims the right to make those decsions, a person of faith abdicates that right to their God.

Now, yes, this is different than the issue my friends experienced. But let us look at the larger context here.

Medicine as we know it today has given us the ability to extend life and treat many many conditions that otherwise would have been fatal in recent years. Additionally, modern medicine has also given us the ability to look at fetal abnormalities fairly early and even find ways to treat these abnormalities.

What I find interesting is that the ethical question regarding the benefits of such life-extending measures have not been asked -- only the ethical question of not using these measures. In my friends' case, their baby was literally missing half of his heart. Should he have been born, the child would have had to be immediately placed on full life support. If he was strong enough, he would have been taken to surgery and an attempt would have been made to reconstruct his heart so that it could function. Given that there was half a heart missing, this is, obviously, not something that can be done very well. It would be possible to get a heart transplant, but the likelihood that the child would be strong enough to survive until then was very slim.

I agree with you that the ethic of devoting huge resources to a single individual while letting many others go sick is a question we have failed to address with any vigor. We should. It brings us into the even more difficult question (which probably deserves its own thread) Does thou shalt not kill encomapss an active duty? Is it enough not to cause the death of another or must we activly seek to prevent all deaths?

Now, my question to those who would say it was unethical to abort this child is: why would God cause a child to suffer in this way, when it was highly likely he would be in a great deal of pain and suffering and would die? What benefit is there to God's kingdom for allowing this child to be born-full term and then know nothing but the NICU and surgery until he breathed his last?

Sorry, and I don't mean to be flipant here, but wrong question. God did not cause or permit this to happen, unlucky geneitcs caused this problem. Since we left the garden this world has been ours. We, having free will, are each set to find our way back to him. God originally set up the world to be a place that he would dwell in with us, and we would have all our lives directed, protected and ordered by him. We rejected that, and he gave us dominion over the earth. With the good and bad that comes with it.

What good would come of it? I have no idea. I do know that by aborting any good that could come is precluded. Further as you pointed out, our medical arts have become quite good, while a heart transplant was, as you say, a remote possibility - it was not impossable.

On the other hand, in the end this child knew nothing but the peace of his mother's womb. He was born unhurriedly, sadly, but lovingly, and the marks of his brief presence here are still cherished. After all this, though, my friend hopes to have more children. Would these children be here if her child had been born and suffered as he did? Would her heart be so broken she would not be able to tolerate taking the risk of having another baby? Who knows.

There are people who choose to carry such babies to term, and I do not criticize their choices. However, what I wish to point out is that there is much moral ambiguity in these situations -- at least in regard to the ending of life (there is no moral ambiguity as to the worth of life, however). And I think Christians can (and do) make choices in both directions, often with deep reflection and consideration, and concluding that they have made the right choice.

So to bring it back to the OP--in terms of this issue, I still think that there's a wide range of Christian morality, and that Christians with deep faith and spirituality make choices that which other Christians would disagree.

Your conclusions are correct, there is a wide range of morality - but that does not negate my original response, that humaism and faith are incompatable becasue the very basis of the source of morality is different. The person of faith accepts morality from the revelation of God. The humanist accepts only himself as the font of authority.

 

[2cents]

Are liberal humanism and Christianity ultimately compatible value-systems? Why or why not?

Lets skip the abortion debate and head back to the original question.

Fish and Bread, what does it mean to you to be "Christian"? Could you define Christian Gospel as you understand it?

 

[Finella]

I believe that the commandment, accuratly translated is : "Thou shalt not kill". Simon is correct that even in its absoluteness there are exceptions that the Bible appears to sanction. For example, as Simon points out St. Paul avers that the state is given the power to exact the death penalty, a nation is entitled to defend itself in war. We may intervene where one person seeks to murder another, and prevent it even to the cost of the would be murderers life. If there are any other exceptions I am unaware of them.

So if you believe God has ordained governments the right to kill in war, then Hitler had the God-ordained right to kill the Jews.

Now, I know you're not saying this, I point it out because of its absurdity. Surely there are exceptions to this exception as well? Do you automatically sanction any government's waging war because God said they have the right to? Do you not have your own ideas about this?

Without getting too mired in the abortion thing, I want to point out, again, that using the same scriptural basis different religious denominations and groups have come to different conclusions about abortion (and contraception, and other related issues). This says to me that the interpretation of scripture is not completely objective, and that there are other factors at play. I would suggest that there are in fact social forces involved, cultural issues. When I say that not all Christians have the same sense of morality as you do, I don't suggest we take a vote about morality (to answer your assertion that I claim religion is 'democratic') I'm simply stating a fact that Christians come to different conclusions on these matters. I think the suggestion that God has somehow dictated morality to Christians is a bit shaky, given the wide variety of morality in devoted, serious Christians.

I agree with you that the 'source' may be different. My friends did not consult the Bible, for example, nor did they pray when they made their decision to end their pregnancy. But "good" Christians could have made the same choice with the same amount of consideration and agonizing.

So how does the source of the morality (if it is possible that God is a direct source, as opposed to acting through one's church group or social group) affect one's values if the actions are the same? Is there a real difference? (I don't have the answer to this, I'm asking for your ideas.)

If there is little difference in the actions of "good" Christains and "good" humanists, then I still wonder how their values can be incompatible?

 

[pmcleanj]

I believe that the commandment, accuratly translated is : "Thou shalt not kill".

Hebrew: ratsak
:1) to murder, slay, kill
a) (Qal) to murder, slay
1) premeditated
2) accidental
3) as avenger
4) slayer (intentional) (participle)
b) (Niphal) to be slain
c) (Piel)
1) to murder, assassinate
2) murderer, assassin (participle)(subst)
d) (Pual) to be killed

Compare nakah, harag, which are generic words for "kill" not carrying the implication of legal violation that "ratsak" carries; and with muwth (killing in response to a commandment) and shachat (slaughter of food or sacrifice) which forms of killing are not only not forbiddenby the Law, but in fact required by the Law.

It would seem that in twentieth-century English, "murder" is a more accurate translation of the specific verb ratsak than is the generic verb "kill". In seventeenth-century English, the generic verb was "slay", and "kill" did carry the implication of "murder".

 

[Fish and Bread]

Lets skip the abortion debate and head back to the original question.
Fish and Bread, what does it mean to you to be "Christian"? Could you define Christian Gospel as you understand it?

I think the most important value that Christianity has contributed to world ethics is love. By that I don't mean that Christians invented love, but because Jesus said the two greatest commandments were loving God and neighbor, love took an usually central role in the faith. The idea that God loves us and we should strive to love others is a simple one, but an important one that's often overlooked. The good part of the "good news" is love, and it's ensuing value of reaching out to help the poor and the downcast without judgement.

The rest I am increasingly feeling holds us back more than it helps. I have really lost my patience with hell and byzantine moral codes that may be fine for the average person, but make the lives of people who are in atypical situations miserable. There needs to be some flexibility. Biblical and traditional literalism put God in a box. Maybe God does live in that box, but if he does I don't think humankind should feel the need to live there with him. God should be an aid and not a barrier to happiness.

I'll admit, I'm beginning to fall off the map of Christiandom. The only Christian services I really enjoy are the liturgical high-church services, which I enjoy because of their liturgical high-churchiness.
When they get stripped down, I find a lot of even the theology and the bible passages very disturbing nowadays and really have a miserable time. On the other hand, I have found a UU church where I am very comfortable and feel welcome, and there is an interesting speaker there each week, I feel like I'm learning and much more at peace sitting there each Sunday. If Christ brings peace, then for me Christ is more in the UU than elsewhere. To be honest, I think long-term I am going to sign up and also maintain my ECUSA membership, dropping occasionally to enjoy the high-churchmanship, and on major holidays. Nothing's to say I can't be both.

 

[Rev. Smith]

So if you believe God has ordained governments the right to kill in war, then Hitler had the God-ordained right to kill the Jews.

Now, I know you're not saying this, I point it out because of its absurdity. Surely there are exceptions to this exception as well? Do you automatically sanction any government's waging war because God said they have the right to? Do you not have your own ideas about this?

Of course not. Scripture makes clear that the power of government to kill is for the purpose of rightiousness, to protect society and surpress wickedness. Likewise the the liberty of a soldier at war applies to the soldier, not his government (no greator love again). Many wars and most executions are the gravest sin.

The wars we are waging right now are illustrative. Afganistan attacked us in a most heinious way (the terroists were not "state" actors, but the Taliban's support of them before and after the attack made Afganistan an actor). The President gave Afganistan every opportunity to relent and turn over the Al Quida leaders it was protecting, when refused they went to war.

In Iraq on the other hand we seem to be fighting a war for , at best, strategic reasons and at worst becasue the President was ****ed off at Saddam. The former war is almost certanly rightious, the latter is almost certainly a grave sin on the part of many of our leaders.

In each case the soldiers, being "under authority" are free from sin so long as they are rightious in their actions (the soldiers at Abu Grabe come to mind as a problem area)

I will also assert to you that the Hitler genocide is far more of an indictment of humanism (or paganism - there is some evidence that Hitler was an occultist) then it is of Christian morals, Hitler lived in a Catholic country - but was not a believer. (Mein Kampf makes this very clear). Would Hitler have given himself permisssion to engage in genocide if he accepted God's right to judge his action?

Of course I have my own opinions (if you check some of my posts in this forum alone you'll see I have many). Are we to define a humanist as anyone possesed of an opinion? Then we all are humanisits and the OP question is resolved.

Again, the differance is: I take my moral guideance from my God. In the case of the Christian faith (and many others) that comes through the revelation of God.

Without getting too mired in the abortion thing, I want to point out, again, that using the same scriptural basis different religious denominations and groups have come to different conclusions about abortion (and contraception, and other related issues). This says to me that the interpretation of scripture is not completely objective, and that there are other factors at play. I would suggest that there are in fact social forces involved, cultural issues. When I say that not all Christians have the same sense of morality as you do, I don't suggest we take a vote about morality (to answer your assertion that I claim religion is 'democratic') I'm simply stating a fact that Christians come to different conclusions on these matters. I think the suggestion that God has somehow dictated morality to Christians is a bit shaky, given the wide variety of morality in devoted, serious Christians.

I am not aware of any major Christian sect that is pro-choice. The exception that is widly adopted about the life of the mother is widesread. By the way the views on contraception are not based on the same issues of killing. Some creeds take God's instruction when he was booting us out of the Garden to "be fruitfull and multiply" as an active command, they then conclude that it is sinful to prevent a conception becasue to do so violates the active command. Here is another divergent view within Christendom, I think that one is just plain silly.

And of course Christians come to different conclusion from the same scripture (that is one of the reasons why there are so many denominations). The differing answers they come to does not change the original premise, that the humanist is self directed and the person of faith is other directed.

God has indeed "dictated" his moral precepts to us, we simply can't agree in every particular as to what it means. There is some fairly good theological speculation out there as to why this is; it is based on the concept of freedom of action. That which is essential to salvation is made so clear as to be beyond argument (the commandments, Love God, Love your neighbor). Everythng else is given to guide, but not command. (I have just boiled several books down to two sentences - this is an area that really needs its own threads)

I agree with you that the 'source' may be different. My friends did not consult the Bible, for example, nor did they pray when they made their decision to end their pregnancy. But "good" Christians could have made the same choice with the same amount of consideration and agonizing.

So how does the source of the morality (if it is possible that God is a direct source, as opposed to acting through one's church group or social group) affect one's values if the actions are the same? Is there a real difference? (I don't have the answer to this, I'm asking for your ideas.)

In the results No. Some Christian sects would disagre, those that hold the "faith alone" position. Since salvation is through Christ alone those Christians argue that acceptance of Jesus as your God is an essential element of salvation. To these Christians the answer would be yes, the differance is that no matter how virtious the humanist is, they will not know eternal life becasue they did not accept Jesus. My confession (and many others) believe that ther is salvation outside the church, to hold otherwise is to limit the mercy and love of God. Further we point out to our brothers that holding the faith alone view that God himself has declared otherwise in scripture, as did Paul and Peter.

I point this out for two reasons. First, I think you place too much emphasis on the fact that there are divergant views in any religion to this question. It is not uniformity of answer that is key to a life of faith, it is the acceptance of the direction of God that sets the person of faith apart from the humanist. My Bishop and I disagree on many things (which is why I'll never be made a Bishop - he keeps telling me that I'm an "affable heretic" ) - but we are attempting to discern right action from the same source, our God. The humanist is attempting to discern right action from themsleves.

Second, it is the purpose of the quest for moral living that differs. The humanist seeks to live a good and moral life (I hope) because he holds that as a virtue, having decided that living a good life is important he seeks to live a good life. The person of faith seeks to live a good and moral life (I hope) in order to build a more perfect communion with God.

The results in terms of worldy action will often be the same, but both the source of authority and the purpose of the action diverge.

You make an ineresting point about the revelation of God as opposed to the group. We had that once, when God dwelled with us - we choose otherwise. Now we are left with scripture, tradition and reason to guide us.

If there is little difference in the actions of "good" Christains and "good" humanists, then I still wonder how their values can be incompatible?

First, in the range of possable outcomes. Very few persons view themselves as evil. Some of the greatest evil done in this world was done in the name of the "greator good". Hitler thought he was the salvation of his people. Stalin killed three million Rusiians to create a perfect country. Pol Pot sought to rid Cambodia of all the "bad" people in order to create paradise. None of these men set out to do evil, on the contrary they sought to make the world a much better place.

The humaists and Christians values and conclusions will be the same most of the time, we come from the same culture and traditions - they will diverge often and it is the divergance that incompatabilty lies.

I was once debating the morality of the deth penalty with an atheist. At one point he asked me to prove that the death penalty was immoral without resort to God, he wanted me to prove it through "reason" (in other words, he wanted it proven on his terms).

I responded that I would not do that (it is possable, of course), I refued on the grounds that as a person of faith I was empowered to draw moral conclusions from my faith.

 

[Simon_Templar]

So if you believe God has ordained governments the right to kill in war, then Hitler had the God-ordained right to kill the Jews.

Now, I know you're not saying this, I point it out because of its absurdity. Surely there are exceptions to this exception as well? Do you automatically sanction any government's waging war because God said they have the right to? Do you not have your own ideas about this?

The thing people don't seem to get about authority is that it is protection against power. Authority gives those who have it the RIGHT to do certain things. People who have adopted relativism or rebellion hate this idea because they find it offensive that anyone has the right to tell them what to do, or not to do, ever.

Power is the ability to do a thing. Power is defacto. It can't be denied because it is simply so plain to see that it would be like trying to deny the sun, or the moon, or the earth beneath your feat. Furthermore, even if you can deny it, it won't do you any good because power is still there and those have it will still use it.

Authority on the other hand is relatively easy to deny and people frequently do. They do so to get away from the idea that someone has the right to give them orders.
What is lost in all this is that authority is a protection against power. Whether or not a government has the authority to kill, they do have the power to kill. Wether or not the police have the authority to enforce rules on you, they do have the power to do so.

Authority sets limitations on when it is right to use power. Governments have the power to kill whenever they want.. but they only have the authority to kill in specific circumstances.

For example, governments have the God given right to punnish certain crimes with death. This is directly stated in scripture. You may not like it, you may not think its a good idea.. but it is not a sin for the government to impose the death penelty FOR SPECIFIC CRIMES. This does not mean the government has the right to pick out anyone they want and kill them under their authority to punnish crime. Why? because Authority is a limitation as much as it is an enablemnet.
It is the same for war.. Governments have the right to make war, but there are limitations on that authority. The right to make war is not a general right to kill whoever you want. That is why the question of just war has been talked about in christianity since the beginning of the church. The question is, under what circumstances does the government have the right to wage war, just like, under what circumstances does the government have the right to punnish crimes with death.


Delegated Authority is by its very nature, limited. God's authority is not limited, it is not delegated, it is natural to him. All true authority comes from God in delegated form, thus in limited form.

 

[Finella]

Rev. Smith -- there's a lot to work with here in our debate -- which I thank you for, by the way. It has been very interesting to me.

But before I continue much further, I do have a question for Fish & Bread, because I need clarification on the original question: when you ask if these values are "incompatible", in what way do you mean? It's hard to explain what I mean, I guess, but are we saying in terms of salvation, in terms of earthly living, in both of these areas? Just trying to get some boundaries on the question.

Okay... and briefly to Rev. Smith's and Simon's responses regarding the authority of governments to kill. I understand the traditional arguments where God only gives such authority to the Good Guys, but everyone thinks he/she is a Good Guy. Just as Rev. Smith pointed out, people generally don't see themselves as being evil even when we are being evil. It is certainly possible that Hitler honestly thought he was doing the best thing for Germany. The same could be said for President Bush and the Iraq war (how gratifying that you and I agree on this issue, Rev. Smith!). I'm sure GB honestly feels he is doing what God would want him to do, but our nation's actions are bringing destruction onto innocent people every day. In their eyes, our nation is evil. Their religion tells their militias to fight against the evil our country brings upon them. Religion versus religion, claiming God's right to kill each other. The cycle goes on and on, as it has for thousands of years.

How is this moral? And how much worse would humanists be in a similar situation? In this case, God is telling people to kill each other. Somehow I feel it's less atrocious if people simply kill each other without claiming God told them to do it.

I don't have time at the moment to get into the remaining issues of the debate, but I do think that in some ways it is utterly impossible to compare the values of Christians and humanists as two distinct groups. There has to be some degree of homogeneity in each group in order to do so, but the degree of variation within each group is so great, and is even greater than the variation between Christians and humanists. This is why, Rev. Smith, I do indeed think that the variation in values is relevant to the question being asked by Fish and Bread. But perhaps when he clarifies things I can address this better.

BTW, there is a perfectly logical, non-God informed rationalization for opposing the death penalty. Penn and Teller (infamous magicians, performers, and Libertarian atheists) have a show on Showtime whose title I can't spell out here or it will be censored. But they recently did an excellent episode about the death penalty which I think your atheist friend would find satisfying. Perhaps it would be of interest to you, so you could see how much of your values are compatible with theirs.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Rev. Smith -- there's a lot to work with here in our debate -- which I thank you for, by the way. It has been very interesting to me.

It is not only interesting, but important that we do this. Anyone can form an opinion about anything - unless we are willing to test, revise, defend and explain those opinoons then they have no real worth.[/quote]

... to Rev. Smith's and Simon's responses regarding the authority of governments to kill. I understand the traditional arguments where God only gives such authority to the Good Guys, but everyone thinks he/she is a Good Guy. Just as Rev. Smith pointed out, people generally don't see themselves as being evil even when we are being evil. It is certainly possible that Hitler honestly thought he was doing the best thing for Germany. The same could be said for President Bush and the Iraq war (how gratifying that you and I agree on this issue, Rev. Smith!). I'm sure GB honestly feels he is doing what God would want him to do, but our nation's actions are bringing destruction onto innocent people every day. In their eyes, our nation is evil. Their religion tells their militias to fight against the evil our country brings upon them. Religion versus religion, claiming God's right to kill each other. The cycle goes on and on, as it has for thousands of years.

How is this moral? And how much worse would humanists be in a similar situation? In this case, God is telling people to kill each other. Somehow I feel it's less atrocious if people simply kill each other without claiming God told them to do it.

First, a fine distinction to be made, neither Simon or I (sorry to speak for you Simon) have said that God is telling anyone to kill anyone else. As Simon posited very well, God has (apparently - the Anabaptitsts and Quakers would dispute this) granted the authorty to government, in limited circumstances, to kill. It would be a stretch to assert that the grant of such authority constituted an affirmative duty. Everything in scripture indicates that God seeks the Earth to be a place of peace. God also fully understands the nature of humans, both what he made and what we have made of ourselves.

The Christian martyers of the 1st and 2nd century embody the distinction. seeking to be perfect disciples of Christ, to turn the other cheek they both refused to renounce their faith AND refused to fight against their opressors. The scriptures gave them the authority to oppose, with force, their enemy - but did not require it of them. They choose a far more laudable course, to offer their lives up rather then take another life. Authority does not require the use of power, it only enpowers it. Choice remains.

So the simple truth is that anyone claiming that God told them to kill is lieing, Christian and Muslim rulers alike who make this claim are proclaiming to all and sundry the depth of their own evil.

An aside, I think that is one area where humanists have a real weakness, so many deny the reality of evil. I don't mean denial of Satan, I mean the denial that there are people who are just plain evil, that sweet reason (nor the love of God) will avail nothing against these folks. The person of faith knows that there is evil, that it has a font and that it must be opposed as best we can, even to the cost of our own lives.

My fear is that evil is stalking my country, that every day our republican brothers and sisters blindly follow a government that seeks noting but its own power, and strips our liberty and privacy to hold that power. Ben Franklin once wrote that the man who trades liberty for safety deserves neither, yet our conservative friends seem not only eager to give away their liberty, but angered at those of us who say we won't. Simple fact, I'd rather die a free man at the hands of a terroist then in ripe old age as a slave.

BTW, there is a perfectly logical, non-God informed rationalization for opposing the death penalty. Penn and Teller (infamous magicians, performers, and Libertarian atheists) have a show on Showtime whose title I can't spell out here or it will be censored. But they recently did an excellent episode about the death penalty which I think your atheist friend would find satisfying. Perhaps it would be of interest to you, so you could see how much of your values are compatible with theirs.

I know there are many good, solely secualr arguments I've made them myself many times - but then and now I was making a point. That the secular world has no right to demand that I conform to their views, the very demand that I restrict my opinions and arguments to ones that do not rely on God is an assertion that I have no right to form my morals from God's revelation.

Liberty means freedom of thought first and formost or it means nothing.

Good talking to you, I look forward to your comments on the rest when you have more time.

 

[Fish and Bread]

But before I continue much further, I do have a question for Fish & Bread, because I need clarification on the original question: when you ask if these values are "incompatible", in what way do you mean? It's hard to explain what I mean, I guess, but are we saying in terms of salvation, in terms of earthly living, in both of these areas? Just trying to get some boundaries on the question.

Perhaps I can better explain by analogy. If someone categorizes themselves as a fan of football, that does not preclude them from also being an authentic fan of the television show, "The Gilmore Girls". Even though the one has little or nothing to do with the other, they are not in conflict and one can genuinely hold both labels. Likewise, if one categorizes oneself as a theist, one can also be a Democrat, theism and being a Democrat do not conflict.

However, some things are not compatible. For example, one can not hold a philosophy of hating all ice cream but also categorize oneself as being a fan of vanilla ice cream. The one precludes the next as if they hate all ice cream they can not enjoy vanilla ice cream, and if they enjoy vanilla ice cream they can not hate all ice cream by definition.

So, when we look at Christianity and humanism, they would be compatible if one could hold all the values essential to being a Christian and also simultaneously hold all the values essential to being a humanist. Some Christian values might not be humanist values and vice-versa, but under such a scenario they wouldn't conflict -- so one could be either Christian or humanist or both. If some essential Christian values and essential humanist values irrevocably conflict, then humanism and Christianity would not be fully compatible as values systems, because they couldn't ever both be fully affirmed by the same individual simultaneously.

 

[higgs2]

It says a lot for STR and the posters here that this conversation is proceeding with civility

 

[Rev. Smith]

It says a lot for STR and the posters here that this conversation is proceeding with civility

We are the church of good taste after all

 

[higgs2]

We are the church of good taste after all

As evidenced by our coffee hours?