Humanism and religion

[Lark]

What do you think about the idea that humanism is the unacknowledged basis of all world religions?

 

[LucyJr]

It seems rather too self-sacrificing for humanism, which is generaly very...humanistic in nature.

 

[Lark]

It seems rather too self-sacrificing for humanism, which is generaly very...humanistic in nature.

I dont know christian humanism has been the only real creedo to make sense to me so far and I've been reading up on and thinking about these sorts of things for a long time.

 

[say what]

I don't know much about humanism- would you be able to educate me on the basics?? I quickly looked it up on wiki, but would love to hear more about it!

 

[j654dgj7]

I love this discussion. Humanism and human rights stand against all religions (how can humans give themselves rights without God?) yet it is at the core of how we celebrate religions now.

The way I see it, humanism and religion are two different poles that reject each other.

 

[j654dgj7]

I don't know much about humanism- would you be able to educate me on the basics?? I quickly looked it up on wiki, but would love to hear more about it!

I can highly recommend reading about the life and ideas of Martin Luther - the "founder" of protestantism, and the original rebel against the dominance of the Catholic church. In his ranks there were humanists, and he hated them. He wanted the opposite of the humanists. The humanists wanted the focus of protestantism to be about the rights and problems of humanity. Luther wanted the focus to be about Jesus and the rights given from above to humanity through the Bible. It wasn't until 200 years later that humanism was truly embraced in France and the declaration of human rights.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I suppose it depends on how you define "Humanism."

According to Wikipedia:

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism and with non-theistic religions.[2] Historically however, this was not always the case.

So, again it depends on your definition.

But if you define Humanism THIS way (According to Merriam-Webster Online):

hu·man·ism noun \ˈhyü-mə-ˌni-zəm, ˈyü-\ : a system of values and beliefs that is based on the idea that people are basically good and that problems can be solved using reason instead of religion

Then such Humanism is the ANTITHESIS of Biblical Christianity.

I don't know about other religious texts, but the Bible declares that we're all born in "Original Sin", inherited from Adam during the Fall of Man, resulting in a natural predisposition to sin.

"Original Sin" (from Wikipedia):

Original sin, also called ancestral sin,[1] is the Christian doctrine of humanity's state of sin resulting from the fall of man,[2] stemming from Adam's rebellion in Eden. This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]

Needless to say, that stands in complete opposition to the idea that human beings are basically "good."

 

[Lark]

I love this discussion. Humanism and human rights stand against all religions (how can humans give themselves rights without God?) yet it is at the core of how we celebrate religions now.

The way I see it, humanism and religion are two different poles that reject each other.

Its interesting that you think that and its not untypical, unfortunately, I dont know why this polarisation has taken place and I wonder whose interest it serves, personally I believe that it has a lot to do with the divisions on the US political and cultural scene, and, well, cyberspace is, I've always thought, an American cultural scene for the most part.

The thing is though that as recently as the sixties, possibly even later than that, you couldnt have asserted that dichotomy sensibly. RH Tawney has been superseded by Dawkins and Dennett and the world is a poorer place for it.

 

[Lark]

I can highly recommend reading about the life and ideas of Martin Luther - the "founder" of protestantism, and the original rebel against the dominance of the Catholic church. In his ranks there were humanists, and he hated them. He wanted the opposite of the humanists. The humanists wanted the focus of protestantism to be about the rights and problems of humanity. Luther wanted the focus to be about Jesus and the rights given from above to humanity through the Bible. It wasn't until 200 years later that humanism was truly embraced in France and the declaration of human rights.

Its sort of obvious that you havent read the Discourse on Free Will between Luther, representing emerging protestantism, and Erasmus, representing the Roman Catholic Church.

The "humanists" of the rennaisance period, who where essentially the "men of letters" before the period refered to as the "enlightenment", are not synomynous with atheistic or secularist humanism. Erasmus and Thomas Moore were both notable representatives, both orthodox Roman Catholics and, at least, Erasmus representative of Church Scholars.

Protestantism has been like a lot of other supposedly revolutionary movements, the innovation actually gave way very quickly to chaos and betrayal, Luther unleashed all kinds of radicalism, for better or worse (mainly worse from the stand point of most objective historians), in his confrontation with the RCC but very quickly sided with the barons and principalities against the people during the outbreak of the "peasant wars".

Erich Fromm analysed him as representative of the "rebel" rather than "revolutionary" in his own dichotomy of genuine social innovators versus estranged individuals who felt "under appreciated" by the status quo but who are willing to make peace with it at the first available opportunity, as a psycho-analyst he linked it into experiences from family life, Luther's relationship with his father etc. Although I thought Fromm was too kind to Trotsky and Lenin and similar left wing icons at the same time.

The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker in his book Nationalism and Culture drew many similar conclusions about the reformation and protestantism, noting that Calvin's own protestant theocracy tried to out do the inquisition with its own terror, setting an early precident for new social orders mounting terrors similar to or greater than the old order on the basis that failing to do so would result in the old order striking back with a great or similar terror. Hilaire Belloc wrote at length about it too in a book on heresy and GK Chesterton did so in his book Orthodoxy too. Although likely to be dismissed and ignored, like a lot of older writers, simply because they are "old" writers or "religious" or labelled in some other manner by secularism, which doesnt like to be forced into thinking too much about anything from what I can tell, those are good authors.

 

[Lark]

I suppose it depends on how you define "Humanism."

According to Wikipedia:


So, again it depends on your definition.

But if you define Humanism THIS way (According to Merriam-Webster Online):

Then such Humanism is the ANTITHESIS of Biblical Christianity.

I don't know about other religious texts, but the Bible declares that we're all born in "Original Sin", inherited from Adam during the Fall of Man, resulting in a natural predisposition to sin.

"Original Sin" (from Wikipedia):


Needless to say, that stands in complete opposition to the idea that human beings are basically "good."

That's a great post.

 

[SovereignGrace]

That's a great post.

Thanks, but how does "Christian humanism" make sense?

What's your definition of "humanism"?

And what's your definition of "Christianity"?

Does it include the doctrine of "Original Sin"?


EDIT: Also, do you ever go to this forum's chatroom?

I'd love to have a discussion like this in Chat.

 

[Barnabas]

I can highly recommend reading about the life and ideas of Martin Luther - the "founder" of protestantism, and the original rebel against the dominance of the Catholic church. In his ranks there were humanists, and he hated them. He wanted the opposite of the humanists. The humanists wanted the focus of protestantism to be about the rights and problems of humanity. Luther wanted the focus to be about Jesus and the rights given from above to humanity through the Bible. It wasn't until 200 years later that humanism was truly embraced in France and the declaration of human rights.

Martin Luther was quite consistently a terrible person. Not that he wasn't right about some things, but hey even Hitler said we should quit smoking. Also I wouldn't herald him as the founder of Protestantism as he had no will to split from the catholic church. He was one of the fathers of the reformation movement.

 

[j654dgj7]

Its sort of obvious that you havent read the Discourse on Free Will between Luther, representing emerging protestantism, and Erasmus, representing the Roman Catholic Church.

I have read them. It's sort of obvious that you didn't get that I was referring to Christian Humanists close to Luther during the time of the reformation. I'm not inspired by any of the men that you're referring to, though I am familiar with their works.

Protestantism has been like a lot of other supposedly revolutionary movements, the innovation actually gave way very quickly to chaos and betrayal, Luther unleashed all kinds of radicalism, for better or worse (mainly worse from the stand point of most objective historians), in his confrontation with the RCC but very quickly sided with the barons and principalities against the people during the outbreak of the "peasant wars".

If you are referring to the German Peasants' War which was the main uprising of protestants during Luther's lifetime, Luther didn't "unleash" that. Thomas Müntzer did. He was one of the most prominent Christian Humanists, and he turned on Luther while Luther was in exile. Want to know what Luther said about what Müntzer and the humanists had done while he was away? Here's what he wrote in a letter to Elector:

"During my absence, Satan has entered my sheepfold, and committed ravages which I cannot repair by writing, but only by my personal presence and living word."

Source

Erich Fromm analysed him as representative of the "rebel" rather than "revolutionary" in his own dichotomy of genuine social innovators versus estranged individuals who felt "under appreciated" by the status quo but who are willing to make peace with it at the first available opportunity, as a psycho-analyst he linked it into experiences from family life, Luther's relationship with his father etc. Although I thought Fromm was too kind to Trotsky and Lenin and similar left wing icons at the same time.

Erich Fromm was a very smart man and a very analytical man. I don't claim to know more or be more well-versed in a subject than he is. What I can say, though, is that 19th century socialist/communists weren't too keen on Luther and his writings. Müntzer and the Christian Humanist movement, during the time of Luther, was very popular with those thinkers. They saw them as some of the first Christians fighting for social justice for the people.

Here's my two cents: Calling the guy that broke Catholic ownership of the Christian faith a mere rebel instead of a revolutionary is not giving the man enough credit.

The anarcho-syndicalist Rudolf Rocker in his book Nationalism and Culture drew many similar conclusions about the reformation and protestantism, noting that Calvin's own protestant theocracy tried to out do the inquisition with its own terror, setting an early precident for new social orders mounting terrors similar to or greater than the old order on the basis that failing to do so would result in the old order striking back with a great or similar terror. Hilaire Belloc wrote at length about it too in a book on heresy and GK Chesterton did so in his book Orthodoxy too. Although likely to be dismissed and ignored, like a lot of older writers, simply because they are "old" writers or "religious" or labelled in some other manner by secularism, which doesnt like to be forced into thinking too much about anything from what I can tell, those are good authors.

At no point did I say that I love any of the sides of the Christian reformation unconditionally, nor everything that was done, I just said that I find the subject very fascinating.

 

[j654dgj7]

Martin Luther was quite consistently a terrible person. Not that he wasn't right about some things, but hey even Hitler said we should quit smoking. Also I wouldn't herald him as the founder of Protestantism as he had no will to split from the catholic church. He was one of the fathers of the reformation movement.

Are you a catholic? I'm asking out of curiosity since the Catholic church still has not forgiven him for breaking their dominance over the Christian religion.

He was not the founder of Protestantism? What do you mean? He was literally the guy that protested the Catholic church by hammering his thesis on the church door. He was the guy that faced court rooms with catholics present and a debate over whether or not he should die because of his beliefs. If he's not the founder, who is?

 

[muir]

There was a split for a while as the Templars were persecuted by the french king and his puppet pope

However within a short time after the grand master Jacques de molay was burned at the stake both the french king and the pope were dead

The templars had gone underground anywhere they weren't going to be persecuted

They fled to scotland, portugal and switzerland for example. This created a strong banking sector in switzerland and in scotland and in london england. In portugal the shipping expertise of the templars was able to be utilised as they turned form pirating against muslim shipping in the med (hence the skull and crossbones flag) to exploration and it is no coincidence that the ships that went across to the americas bore the templars red cross on their sails

The templars were part of the impetus behind the reformation and the protestant movement

However in more recent times this rift between factions in the secret society network has been healed and nowadays they form a cohesive network

Christianity is only the exoteric outer order of the secret societies. The inner order is freemasonry and qabalah

 

[Lark]

Thanks, but how does "Christian humanism" make sense?

What's your definition of "humanism"?

And what's your definition of "Christianity"?

Does it include the doctrine of "Original Sin"?


EDIT: Also, do you ever go to this forum's chatroom?

I'd love to have a discussion like this in Chat.

I dont know anything about the chat function to be honest, I'm not sure I'd be interested in that kind of thing.

Humanism I define as a doctrine which has humanity as its object of devotion and takes its frame of reference, including ethics, from there. In my own reading of the theistic world religions, God is a humanist too, however, in Christianity this goes beyond a hypothetical relationship established by covenants or a sort of celestial or divine contractualism to his being incarnate as a human being too, the writers there after in the Christian tradition are also more humanistic, suggesting things such as it is impossible to say that you love God when you have not seen him and you despise your neighbour whom you have seen, Matthew's version of the final judgement upon humanity is entirely established upon humanistic qualifications or actions rather than beliefs or anything you may think or profess about sacrifices etc.

My definitions of Christianity are the same as those of the RCC, I'm a practicing RC, and the leading lights of the same such as Erasmus and Moore. I am interested in Jung and Fromm's thinking on religion though, to mention just two key thinkers.

I do think the doctrine of original sin is a fact, I dont believe in it in the sense of sacramentalism, which is woefully misunderstood by believer and non-believer alike, people are not damned before their birth, I dont believe in strict predestination anymore than I do strict sociological or economic or philosophical determinism. However I do believe that original sin can and does exist at the individual and social or cultural level as fundamental doubts, I dont merely mean about the existence of God, that is part of it, but about the world and being, in an existential sense. All religions and many other schools of thought are responses to that.

Christian humanism can exist as a atheistic doctrine you know, I dont restrict myself to so called "naturalistic" beliefs but that does not mean that there are not others who are satisfied with that. I've read tracts written by some anglo-catholics which would appear to accept most of the usual atheistic doctrines and yet still profess to believe in Christian teachings or Jesus' ministry as it is remembered.

 

[Barnabas]

Are you a catholic? I'm asking out of curiosity since the Catholic church still has not forgiven him for breaking their dominance over the Christian religion.

He was not the founder of Protestantism? What do you mean? He was literally the guy that protested the Catholic church by hammering his thesis on the church door. He was the guy that faced court rooms with catholics present and a debate over whether or not he should die because of his beliefs. If he's not the founder, who is?

I wrote out a really long response last night just to have my internet cut out and delete my post so were going to do the TLDR version this time. No I'm not Catholic I'm a christian with theological tetherings to the Restoration/Stone-Campbell movement, @FlaviusAquila is catholic though and if you have specific questions about the Catholic Church could answer them better the I could.

In short Luther Never wanted to leave the catholic church, he simply wanted large scale reform to take place on theological and practical level. He wanted things like indulgences to go away, he wanted to have the Bible properly translated into languages other then roman. He also wanted the church to recognize that only God could forgive sins and that Pope could not.

The catholic church eventually excommunicated him, but he never left. He would later return home and preach against other more radical reformationists who among other thing sought separation from the catholic church. Luther would likely be mortified by a church splitting off and using his name.

As for the breaking away from the catholic church and whether or not they have forgiven the protestant churches... I think it's mostly a non-issue, I read a wonderfull article a while back reporting that the catholic church and several other protestant churches came together to openly recognize the validity of the others baptism. That's a big deal, both groups are acknowledging that the others are christian and that their baptisms lead to salvation.



Edit: I'm terrible at tagging other members, can some please properly tag flavius Aquila for me.

 

[j654dgj7]

I wrote out a really long response last night just to have my internet cut out and delete my post so were going to do the TLDR version this time. No I'm not Catholic I'm a christian with theological tetherings to the Restoration/Stone-Campbell movement, @FlaviusAquila is catholic though and if you have specific questions about the Catholic Church could answer them better the I could.

In short Luther Never wanted to leave the catholic church, he simply wanted large scale reform to take place on theological and practical level. He wanted things like indulgences to go away, he wanted to have the Bible properly translated into languages other then roman. He also wanted the church to recognize that only God could forgive sins and that Pope could not.

The catholic church eventually excommunicated him, but he never left. He would later return home and preach against other more radical reformationists who among other thing sought separation from the catholic church. Luther would likely be mortified by a church splitting off and using his name.

You're absolutely right on the history angle. He never wanted to leave the church, and they excommunicated him for the views you described above, along with a lot of other views detailed in his thesis that he is known for. However, I don't feel like you're giving the guy enough credit to go with it. When he was excommunicated, he translated the Bible into German, which caused a whole wave of commotion among the normally obedient Catholic/Christian communities of Europe. He started protestantism. Without his critique (protest) against how the Catholic church were doing things back in the day, and his excommunication, it wouldn't have started off. That's my opinion, but I believe that is the general and accepted historical opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As for the breaking away from the catholic church and whether or not they have forgiven the protestant churches... I think it's mostly a non-issue, I read a wonderfull article a while back reporting that the catholic church and several other protestant churches came together to openly recognize the validity of the others baptism. That's a big deal, both groups are acknowledging that the others are christian and that their baptisms lead to salvation.

It might be a non-issue for you, but I can tell you that a lot of the Lutheran Protestants in my home country would be super stoked if the Catholic church recognized Martin Luther, and finally acknowledged his importance in their own religion as well.

 

[Barnabas]

You're absolutely right on the history angle. He never wanted to leave the church, and they excommunicated him for the views you described above, along with a lot of other views detailed in his thesis that he is known for. However, I don't feel like you're giving the guy enough credit to go with it. When he was excommunicated, he translated the Bible into German, which caused a whole wave of commotion among the normally obedient Catholic/Christian communities of Europe. He started protestantism. Without his critique (protest) against how the Catholic church were doing things back in the day, and his excommunication, it wouldn't have started off. That's my opinion, but I believe that is the general and accepted historical opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong.



It might be a non-issue for you, but I can tell you that a lot of the Lutheran Protestants in my home country would be super stoked if the Catholic church recognized Martin Luther, and finally acknowledged his importance in their own religion as well.

People had been seeking reform for the catholic church before and after Luther, and what most people consider protestant is tied more closely to the puritan movement and the American Great awakening. Luther's Church is realistically just Catholicism with some parts taken out(I'm sure you've heard of Lutherans refereed to as catholic lite jokingly).

To call Luther the father of the protestant reformation does injustice to those who came before and after him especially when it's not what Luther himself wanted. Men like john Wycliffe a Jan Huss who both operated before luther seeking biblically based reform are better candidates.

 

[j654dgj7]

People had been seeking reform for the catholic church before and after Luther, and what most people consider protestant is tied more closely to the puritan movement and the American Great awakening.

I think I know what's going on - we're talking past each other. I'm referring to the protestantism that grew out of Europe, and you're referring to the American Great Awakenings. I guess it's probably a European/American thing.

Luther's Church is realistically just Catholicism with some parts taken out(I'm sure you've heard of Lutherans refereed to as catholic lite jokingly).

Not at all. They were extremely different at the time and to this day. Luther basically gutted the Catholic church's teachings and said that if it wasn't in the five solae, then it probably didn't matter. They went:

Solae scriptura: Only through scripture. If it's not in the bible, you shouldn't follow it. This excluded church traditions and doctrine.
Solae fide: By faith alone. Only through faith in the scripture can you receive salvation. Your church can no longer sell you salvation
Solae gratia: By grace alone. God loves everyone equally, everyone receives salvation. Gratia universalis - universal grace from God. We can't escape the love of God.
Solo Christo: Through Christ alone. The love of Jesus and his teachings will give you peace and love in your life. He should be the example of your life. Give to the poor, receive in Heaven. All that stuff
Soli Deo gloria. Glory to God alone. God doesn't share his glory. No love for the Virgin Mary, angels or any of the Catholic saints.

Luther was, like you've said, very conservative in his protests and never wanted anyone hurt and just wanted reform of what already stood. Where I'm from you'll see that most of the churches that's around are from before Luther's time, but are completely different. All of the colored windows were smashed and clear windows were set in. Everything's decorated to be as white and bare as possible, to be welcoming and not to try and impose itself upon you.

I was a Lutheran Christian for most of my life, and it's pretty awesome. It's about how we can't possibly please God, because he doesn't want for us to please him. We have to realize that we're all equally flawed, and try to live our lives after what Jesus said. I'm no longer a Lutheran Christian but am in the process of seeking out and becoming a Quaker. I don't mind shitting on Luther and what he said, because he was nutty on certain stuff too. He did live a long, long time ago. When he was born Europeans hadn't even found America.

To call Luther the father of the protestant reformation does injustice to those who came before and after him especially when it's not what Luther himself wanted. Men like john Wycliffe a Jan Huss who both operated before luther seeking biblically based reform are better candidates.

I agree that those people need to be venerated in their struggle as well, but you've gotta admit that he was the dude that eventually got it done. He was the protestantism guy. I'm sorry to keep pushing this, but if you look up protestantism on Wikipedia, you'll find this at the top of the article:

"Protestantism encompasses forms of Christian faith and practice that originated with doctrines and religious, political, and ecclesiological impulses of the Protestant Reformation, against what they considered the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. The term refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms condemning the teachings of Martin Luther as heresy. "