REASON & FAITH APOLOGETICS
HUMANISM
Humanism theism and secularism
Humanism, secularism and theism all reject religion or God based on different reasons.
Naturalism – science
refutes religion on the grounds of empirical observation which is said to describe a material reality only.
Humanism –we can be moral without God.
refutes religion on the grounds of equality which is central to their morality but they believe it is absent from all religions. They believe science is the only way we can learn about the material world -there is only the material world.
Atheism – no evidence for a God
refutes religion on the grounds of insufficient evidence for a God.
What is secularism- church and state
secularism advocates that religion has no place in state affairs and that there should be a complete separation between religion and state matters. The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
What is humanism-
Humanism refers to a rationalist system of thought that gives primary importance to human matters instead of divine or supernatural matters and emphasizes the value and agency of human beings and prefers rationalism and empiricism over the acceptance of superstition or dogma.
What is secular humanism-
Combines the two. Morality and equality without God. The state/ national governance without God.
Humanism does not have a leg to stand on
God does not exist and humans are the foundation of moral values or moral values derive their existence from human experience.
-
Humanism is entrenched in the belief there is no God.
-
It’s not enough to claim there is no God for this is a faith claim without the evidence.
-
So, the humanist must say there is no evidence for God to get out of being just a faith.
-
Even, so, the lack of evidence for God is not proof there is no God.
-
If they claim there is evidence, then they must produce such evidence to back their claim.
-
No one has been able to construct a proof that God does not exist.
There is therefore no good reason to believe Atheism is any more true than Theism.
There is also no good reason to believe human beings are the foundation of human value. Why? if God exists and God created human beings then God is the foundation of value not the humans. So, if God exists then there is no reason to suppose the humanism is therefore true.
Even if God does not exist there is still no good reason to believe humans are the foundation of human value. Once you remove God from the picture then on what grounds can you say human value exist. Moral values then are just by-products of evolution and there is nothing objectively special about human beings. They are just specs of left-over stardust bumping into each other and or minds just fizzing chemicals without meaning and purpose. Evolution cannot prove that rape is really a wrong. It has been given a social consequence but remove the consequence and we are mere matter bumping into each other and rape is just another bump. It is as natural as death and life and killing for this is the way of nature and “so called evolutionary” laws of nature.
Chemicals don't create thoughts
According to evolution we are just left-over material or star dust and our brains are chemicals fizzing. Chemicals don’t create thought, logic, reason or are rational. Baking soda and vinegar gets a reaction they don’t making thoughts. in our head chemicals don’t make thoughts don’t matter how hard you try. So where do the laws of logic come from. According to scripture we have a mind and a conscience. Where it is located no one knows but our mind is not the brain.
When you teach evolution in schools which theory of all the many conflicting theories do you teach about the origin of the universe. You are fooling people that evolution is the cause of rational thought and moral values.
The issue here is not if human beings have value
Can we recognise an objective moral value without believing in God-yes. Can we form a coherent system of ethics without referring to God-yes, but you have to make the assumption human beings have objective moral value. However, God gave us a conscience that causes us to reflect on our actions and feel bad or good about these actions. Must we believe in God to have moral values, no. God did not take away our conscience when He punished Adam/ mankind. So we can reject God but keep His foundation for forming values.
So, the question is not about our belief or disbelief in God that makes man humanly valuable or that a belief causes you to have values. It’s a fact that moral man exists and we recognise this. The question is, from where morality has originated. Its origin is God.
I admire humanism’s faith in the highest value of human worth but the bottom line is that if God exist or not there is no good reason to think humanism is true.
Human beings are not the source of objective value
Human beings are not the source of objective moral values because murder or child sacrifice maybe acceptable in one country but then in another country it is condemned. This is simply arbitrary it depends on your social cultural experience or upbringing. So which country is right or more moral than the other. The humanist must concede it is relative and it is relative then they cannot demand that their little group that meets is some little corner and determine what is moral are morally superior to other human beings who have the right to disagree with them.
The source of objective value
We are first loved by God and God is love and we are made in the image of God. So, we too can love. But love is placed on us by a being outside of humanity so there is no individual bias. The only bias is God. I mean we don’t each get to determine what love is. Otherwise, we may have 7.2 billion people each having their own interpretation of what love is.
Human value was placed on us and given to us not by ourselves but by a source outside this planet then we have an objective standard of what is good. This takes away the relativity and biases that will conflict with other people’s views of right and wrong.
Humanism is no more than an imposter Christianity. It tries to impersonate the morality minus the God.
What is humanism
Humanism is a system of education and mode of inquiry that originated in northern Italy during the 13th and 14th centuries and later spread through continental Europe and England. The term is alternatively applied to a variety of Western beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm.
This is the interest in classical ideas from Greece and Rome. It was started by Catholic scholars who wrote and commented on philosophy, naturalist etc., they were called humanists and their study was the humanities. This term is confusing because one may think they are like today’s humanist who studied humans and not the religious world. The Middle Ages was filled with isms. Ism means belief in something. Intellectuals questioned the Catholic view of the world, that by worship God, paying penance, doing good works, and following sacraments to earn your way into heaven.
Humanists started reading old Greek texts, classic literature, arts and philosophy. They were not exposed to this kind of literature and teaching. They were still Catholic but wanted to add this new idea about the world to enrich their Catholicism.
Humanists history
Humanist Petrach 14 century promoted classic Latin. In the 15 century people begin identifying themselves as humanists. Lorenzo Valla. Marsollio Fiscio Neo platonism. Revived platonism and try to join them with Catholicism. All people are connected through love. Pico Della Mirandola wrote the humanist piece -Oration on the dignity of man. Universal true – God gave us the potential to achieve whatever we want. He wrote “to him is granted to whatever he chooses and to be whatever he wants.”
From the Medieval Sunset and Modern Sunrise, 1305–1517 Internal attempts to reform a corrupt papacy were made by mystics, who sought to personalize a religion too institutionalized. Attempts at reform were also made by early Reformers, such as the mystics John Wycliffe and John Hus, reform councils, and biblical humanists. [1]
From 1517 and beyond the late reformers like Martin Luther, Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli. (Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist, and Anabaptist.) Henry VIII in 1534 brought changes to England, kicking out the Pope as head of the Church.
Renaissance
15 & 16th centuries. The Byzantine empire ended 1453, and the scholars took their books to Italy with them. The rebirth of Greek and Roman culture, thought, philosophy and naturalism (Old Science) that promoted a change in art, literature, thinking. The European middle class also poured into Florence Italy bringing lots of disposable income. This money funded the collection of ancient books, classical study, art as an industry, building and architecture.
Modern humanism
let's jump ahead to the Humanist manifesto 1 was written by Raymond B. Bragg (1933). They deny their heritage or foundations within Catholic scholarship...............................
These were a group of Biblically based people developing humanism out of the root of Christianity. This means it heavily depends on Christianity whether consciously or unconsciously. However, they are Christian elements within all stages in the development of humanism. Humanism may seek to differ in the rejection of a transient being, one is not guided by the wisdom spirit but by self, one is directed to perfect himself as opposed o developing towards a character of Jesus. The Humanist and the Christian both accept the dignity of mankind as valuable.
To learn more about the similarities between Christianity and Humanism go to the link below.
Christianity and Humanism | Harvard Square Library
The Humanist copy morals similar to those of the Christian morals and say they are human ethics
and want the United Nations and governments to recognise, adopt them (i.e. legislate them) and enforce them. So it becomes criminal not to adhere to these morals/ethics.
Let's understand the differences between ethics and morals in order to understand the actions of government.
Ethics are dependent on the prism of others. Morality is seen from the perspective of an individual.
If the contexts are different then the ethics could be different, hence there is some degree of flexibility or relative in ethics. Change in Morality depends on the change in the beliefs of an individual-Christian morality is absolute-the person may change but the moral laws remain.
Ethics are followed because society has decided that it is the right course of action. Morality is followed because a person believes that it is the right course of action.
A person who follows the ethical principles need not necessarily have strong moral values, in fact, there are even possibilities that they may not have any morals. There could be situations where ethics are violated by a moral person to maintain to uphold his moral values.
Ethics is something usually associated in the field of law, medicine or business. Ethics does not have a religious connotation. Morality has a religious connotation.
When the government legislates thou shalt not kill it sees this as an ethical principal not as a moral principal anymore. That is, the government sees it as a wrong, it legislates it, while government may be irreligious, the government may later change its mind on killing and see it as good -- this is because government is treating this not as a moral but as an ethical principle, something that is relative, flexible, changeable and dependent on the society to exist. while if it was treated as a moral then it cannot be changed even if society changed or if you are a monarchy or republic.
There is really no difference between the moral and the ethic in the case of murder. The ethic is a moral but in the hands of a secular government it is treated differently and manipulated by mankind to suit mans various political purposes.
A tale of two beliefs
The Atheists cannot disprove God therefore they have faith not proof that God does not exist. The Christians believe that God exist. However, they do observable historical evidence for this whether or not the Atheists accept it. The conclusion is that it takes more faith to be an Atheist.
So we have two faiths try for the attention of Government. Now, the majority (80%) of the country is religious the remainder are unspecified Religions and Ethnicity - Barbados (mecometer.com)
We don't know what percent are atheists. So when this small group of Atheists claim that government should choose their religious view over the 80% religious view, the question is why. Why one belief over another and why a minority belief over the majority belief.
They claim they are Morally superior-
-
Their moral codes (their 10 commandments) are greater than the Biblical 10 commandments and Jesus’ teachings. There codes are really just subsets of the Biblical codes.
-
They don’t endorse slavery, yet it was not the Atheists who Abolished slavery. In fact, Atheist also had slaves and there were known Atheists who rose up to prevent slavery. It was the true Bible believing Christians who eventually fought for the abolition of slavery.
-
They don’t reject trans people they encourage the fantasy and enshrine it into laws and force people to believe in a lie.
-
They don’t reject the idea that homosexuality is not natural they create pseudo-science stories to promote it.
-
They are opposed to God killing people in the Bible, yet atheist dictators kill more people in the 20th century than world war II.
Remove God from any constitution so what?
Even if God is removed, on paper.....
Christians in America determined that they did not want anyone group to have political control as they have learned from the past when
Although the words separation of Church and State are not in the American constitution they were found in Thomas Jefferson's letter written in reply to the Baptist's letter in 1802.
Thomas Jefferson (President of the USA) who coined the phrase separation between Church and State said, "legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." JeffersonDanburyBaptists.pdf (au.org)
The principle of a "religious liberty" exists in the First Amendment, even if those words are not actually there.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."The Constitution - Full Text | The National Constitution Center
The point of such an amendment is twofold.
[1] First, it ensures that religious beliefs - private or organized - are removed from attempted government control. This is the reason why the government cannot tell either you or your church what to believe or to teach.
[2] Second, it ensures that the government does not get involved with enforcing, mandating, or promoting particular religious doctrines, even including belief in any gods.
We are all made in the image of God. As Christians we don’t persecute others for believing in any God or religion, or rejecting God e.g. Atheism or if they became apostate. People make choices and are judged accordingly by God.
The letter from the Baptists to the President suggests that if attention is not paid to their concerns then laws could be made that cause religious people to suffer because of their beliefs. I believe the Baptists had learned the lesson from what happened in Britain King Henry VIII established the English Church (Anglican and many disputes ensued among that Church and puritans and others that also led to the King James Bible being published); and Europe where only the Catholics were recognised by the states and the Catholics persecuted the reformers and their own home grown persecutions in America. It was about 30yrs after independence and the Baptists seemed to have learnt from pass lessons and sought to safe guard Religious liberty, thinking it was the best time to ask for it.
Removing God from our Charter of independence and National Anthem however, as possible as it maybe, the Atheist societies cannot make Barbadians Godless. Also, we as Christian’s can elect to Government office persons that ensure the freedom of all faiths /religions including Atheism and also a government that supports the freedom of ideas and expression of ideas. This affords us freedom to preach our faith. However, should our government be anti-religion we shall still preach our faith under any circumstances.
The point point must be made that this is the time where Christians around the world realised through its run ins with the LGBT and extreme liberal thinkers that we cannot depend on politicians, legislation or constitution to give us freedom. Some Christians are learning to make the best under pagan rule and persecution. The Church of Jesus Christ was not founded on any constitution or depends on any nation that have God written into its constitution. We were not built upon this and we do not depend on it. and we continue to be Christians whether the constitution or the tradition of the people are supportive of religion or Atheism. If the freedoms that we had for the past 100years were to be suddenly take from us then we will have to learn for the very first time to live under pagan rule and ungodly regime just as Jesus under the romans, the early Christians who were sent to the lions, those in China and those in France, Canada and USA. This is nothing new to Christianity.
I am not saying that to say that Christians ought to be passive or acquiescent in these matters or be silent or give up the public sphere. We still have to stand. Those who may have supported us in the pass may turn on us but we have to remember this God’s Church and we rely on Him. Revelation 2:10 Be faithful to Him until death and I will give you a crown of life.
Arguments for and against God to be in the charter:
-
Against-To them, maybe God is seen as a figure head just as the queen is viewed as a figure head. A symbol of bygone days of a relationship that is strained and is no longer meaning full.
-
For- However, to us the majority of Bajans, the relationship with God is very real and current not a bygone era. So, in fact religion is still a current part of our culture and is alive, well and flourishing. So a nation under God still exist. If the opposite were true, where10% of Barbadians practiced religion and 90% were atheists, skeptics, Agnostics and nones then one could make a case for an Atheist culture and people to want to remove God from their Charter and anthem. In fact, the religious people have a better case to keep God in tact on the books and elsewhere than any other non-religious or faith based (Atheism) group in Barbados.
Removing God and leaving creator in the charter is a compromise
Rogers seemed to arbitrarily make up a reason for removing God but it is more than this. I have been following his sermons and one of them points out that creation is a legend or myth borrowed from the Sumerian myths; he is also an evolutionist and that Jesus the light of the world is borrowed from sun god worship more. So, it is no surprise to me that this perverted understanding of the Bible would remove God in favour of pleasing other religions and support for the ecumenical. It is no surprise that he compromises. The founders of this nation was thinking of the Christian God when they wrote it into the charter and exclusive God and an exclusive faith meaning that faith in this God not Allah, nor Hindu Brahma (creator) or Vishnu and Shiva, nor China's God are Tiān and Shàngdì (the "Highest Deity") etc. It was the Christian God specifically and particularly that was the slave experience for it was these Christian scriptures that were manipulated and perverted (at times ripping out pages from the Bible) in order for the slaves (human beings) to be abused. It was the Christian God whom the slaves believed and cried out to for mercy. It was from the Christian God that mercy came not Allah and the others. It was when God’s people through the teaching of the correct Biblical (Christian) scriptures not Quran, nor Hindu vedas nor Chinese classical literature that brought about the abolition of slavery which freed the slaves in Barbados and worldwide. It is through hope in this God and trust in this Christian God that the people can say he has been on the people side these past ‘300s’ years (the years need to change). Barbadians cannot say that about another God. Its similar to putting ‘we thank Bussa the slave who lead the Barbados revolution’ and later when free slaves from other countries come to settle in Barbados we change the charter to ‘we thank the slaves who lead Barbados revolution’ because we don’t want to offend others. Too bad, it was specifically Bussa the unique Barbados experience.
Also, it fails to teach the true history of Barbados not only pertaining to slavery but post slavery, pre and post-independence. It was the principles of the Christian God i.e. Christian moral values, Christian acceptance of democracy and capitalism, support for government, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and other freedoms all help to shape our culture. Attending Church, certain holidays, Sunday as a rest day and so on became our norms and mores. When people of other faiths come to the west (Barbados) this is what they experience and enjoy and don’t return to their country or leave Barbados. This is due to Christianity and the Christian principles based on the teachings of the Christian God.
In the Hindu caste system blacks are at the bottom end and in Muslim culture blacks are still seen as slaves and are still sold as slaves today 1400yrs since the Muslims enslaved Saharan (African) blacks. They continue to use ABEED (slave) a derogatory word to us blacks. If this was a Muslim or Hindu nation they won’t change Allah (not a name by the way) or Brahma and put God or creator to appease Christians.
To what advantage?
A step by step process of removing God from a constitution or country and replacing Him with evolution.
Step 1- Remove God from the constitution, pledge, anthem, legislation.
Step 2- Remove God from the schools and all public places and institutions.
Step 3- No public preaching, or street evangelism will be against the law.
God can only be mentioned in private spaces (homes or Churches).
Step 4- Replacement theory. What becomes the alternative? Evolution in the disguise of science. Neither science nor evolution disproves God. Everywhere you learn science today they attach a suffix, e.g., evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, evolutionary geology etc.
Evolution is taught in French schools.
laws of logic
A nation without God.
Humanists argue that a nation without God is better. Here is proof why this is not true. The following Atheists who ruled nations without God killed more people that all the wars of the 20th century combined.
Mao Zedong killed 45 million people in four years ...
Stalin-6 to 7 million killed by an artificial famine in 1932-1934; 1 million executed during the ''Great Terror'' of 1937-1938;
Chiang Kai-Shek is a Chinese dictator, who killed, possibly 10 million people. He committed 228 massacres during his 18year rule.
Lenin initiated the Russian civil war The war resulted in the deaths of 7 to 12 million people
Hirihoto was the emperor of Japan from 1926 to 1989. He killed an estimated 6 million people, and committed the now infamous, Nanking massacre.
Kim Il Sung is responsible for the deaths of at least 1.6 million political opponents and civilians through starvation, and invading South Korea
Russia
A heavily promoted atheist alternative to religion called “scientific atheism failed to convert the Russians to atheism. One reason is that it did not come from among the people but from the government who pushed it on to the people. Whether a country officially declares or denies God it only serves to send atheism or religions underground for a period of time. Theism and Atheism are beliefs that cannot be truly adhered to when forced.
France
The laws are implemented in the daily lives of the people. It impacts voting, holding offices, dress codes, education, forms of freedom, religion, family, labour laws etc. The secularists then try to persuade other countries to move away from having God written into their constitutions, anthems, pledges and all forms of public education.
The Bible and the Atlantic Slave trade.
The Bible did not cause the brown on black slave trade. Before the Atlantic slave trade there was the sub-Saharan slave trade, when the Muslims enslaved black people and sold them across Arabia and Asia.
The Bible did not cause the white slave trade which was the result when the Arab Muslims combined with northern black Africans move into Iberia peninsula conquered it and enslaved the white people in Europe for hundreds of years.
The Bible did not cause the white Europeans who won their freedom then enslaved their previous black Africans rulers. It was about money. It was not a Christian crusade nor an evangelism activity.
The Bible did not cause the black kings to sell their black people to white people. The black Africans build banks, military, education and empires off the backs of their black Africans.
It was not the Bible that caused the blacks to be dragged to the Caribbean and Americas. It was money.
1-It was sometime after the slaves were here that they were forced to convert to a “counterfeit Christianity”. But even that is not Christianity. You cannot force a person to convert to Christianity that’s impossible. A person becomes a member of the body of Christ when they receive Christ's Holy Spirit. No one can put the Holy Spirit in you only Christ can baptise a man with the Holy Spirit. Matthew 3:11-12 you remain outside the body of Christ without His Spirit.
2- This was a colonialist revision of the scriptures e.g., the white supremist religion that evolved into its most cruel form the klu klux klan in the USA, which is not Christianity, and the abuse and manipulation of a peaceful loving religion. So, these cushions abused and tricked the blacks with a false Christianity.
The Biblical Christians abolished slavery
3-The true Christians who had true knowledge of the Bible and refused to be a part of this counterfeit Christianity, freed the slaves and ended the slave trade. These abolitionists sought to restore the true Christianity. So, they challenged the white supremist colonialists at the level of parliament by bringing the true teachings of Christianity to them and it convicted their hearts and the result was the abolition of slavery. Christianity freed the slaves while false Christianity re-enforced slavery.
King James Bible was created for slaves
This is really a math problem than a historical one. It seems the Pan Africanists cannot count. Did king James create the Bible to suppress the black slave. let's do the math. In 1604 he ordered the Bible to be translated and it was printed in 1611. He died in 1625. England’s government got involved in the slave trade in 1640’s. England had a Bible before the English Government officially got involved the slave trade. They could not have created it for slaves before the English slave trade.
The "slave" Bible
The Bible was redacted by white supremist (a type of kkk organisation), which is a pseudo or imitation Christianity. King James Bible has 11,089 chapters the slave Bible has 232. This was designed to mind control the slaves and repress rebellion. The books of Jeremiah and Exodus were removed. The Bible is a whole book that cannot be carved up. If the Bible condones slavery, then there is a significant moral flaw in an omnibenevolent God.
ANTHONY FAUCCI-
HUMANIST OF THE YEAR. AWARD